View Poll Results: How stupid are you?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Very - I'll read half your post and move on.

    8 44.44%
  • Somewhat - I'll read all of it and move on.

    3 16.67%
  • Not very - I'll write somebody. Maybe my Dad.

    1 5.56%
  • Quite smart, actually - I'll write a member of Congress.

    2 11.11%
  • Brilliant - I'll write my Representative, Senator, and the President, and will spread the news to get others to do the same to help prevent self-induced extermination of human life on this planet!

    4 22.22%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 74

Thread: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,373
    fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,258
    Quote Originally Posted by SciFi Chick
    How rude! Are you trying to get yourself banned again?

    [edited for typo]
    Uh... no - did you read all of the responses? Or the importance of the discussion?

    Please have mercy on me oh great one for I have sinned before an angry and jealous god!!!!!!!

    Or, at the very least, please allow this post to continue due to the relative importance of it's nature...

    That we will run out of natural gas, then oil, and eventualy nuclear fission is no lie. There are alternative energy sources available, some of which are actually cheaper than current sources, but because of political climates are regularly denied.

    It behooves us as a World (Earth) society to stop quibbling about borders and begin providing for our future, one component of which, energy, is paramount. Without it we will not be able to transport water to the crops. Without it we will not be able to transport the crops to the hungry. Without it we will not be able to plant and care for sufficient crops.

    This cycle doesn't begin to address the additional requirements involving food prepartion, entertainment, visitation, etc.

    Without additional sources of energy, our world as we know it today is doomed, beginning in just 13 short years, and culiminating in just 41 years.

    What kind of life do you want to live between 2017 and 2045?

    If you're at all like the average American, European, Eurasian, Asian, Indonesian, Chinamen, or Japanese, I think you'll have no problem voting nuclear fission as the right course of action - for now.

    Eventually, even nuclear fission will fail to provide for our energy needs, at which time nuclear fusion will carry us the rest of the way, provided all of us accept and adequately deal with the risks inherent to the respective technologies.

    If we do nothing: If we refuse to consider nuclear fusion or fission as a way of bridging the gap in our world's energy requirementsm, we will have done our world a grave disservice, and will have condemned many billions of innocents to their graves.

    We are at a world-wide juncture, people, one which may very well appropriately resolve the question of life on this planet.

    Ununited wars consume far more resources than wars that are not united. Just typing this makes me spent!

    Nevertheless, truth and justice will prevail. This is not the justice of the United States of America, but rather, the justice that is derived from all human activity on this planet.

    It is a justice that speaks for Arabs as well as Christians. It is a justice that speaks for Jews as well as their antagonizers.

    Bottome line - it is a justice, period.

    It is the right thing to do.

    Pray with me, as we embark on a most sacred journey, one of conceptualizing the differences betweeen American and Western thought. Allow for differences in doctrine, yet also allow for differences in approach to the various individuals who post here.

    Thank you for your time.

    (Edited for typos)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,258
    ...just wait for the cost of winter oil to heat your homes. A lot of research should be done into looking at other forms fuel, not being so dependant on the middle east and creating other means of getting of Energy
    Excellent point. As I previously mentiontion, my uncle designed a house that was perhaps 230% more efficient than that of his neighbors...
    Come on, people - Share the wealth!

    In the meantime, consider those beter than yourselves, always loving on anothers, despite debriefing.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by genebujold
    Stop making excuses and get busy.
    Okay, let's start with your post then:
    I ran the numbers myself using sources obtained from the federal government: <snip>

    Add them all together, then apply them against the projected energy consumption rates, and wall - 2048 is the last year a drop of oil will drive anything here on this planet.
    Of course as the resources get lower the price will rise. This will prompt decreased use of the resource and a further push towards alternatives. Once the price becomes prohibitive (say, $10.00US a gallon at the pump) use will decrease dramatically as the market will move towards fuel efficient cars, carpooling and so forth, similar to what happened during the energy crisis is the late 70s-early 80s

    Did you factor that into your calculation?

    Well, that was my theory, which seems to approximate Hubbert's own theory quite closely, with a current peak production, and a drop to just 20% of current production by 2050.
    No that's not close, you say by 2048 the resouce is effectively gone, Hubbert has lots of oil left by 2050. How old is Hubbert's theory anyway? Did he factor in improved efficiency in extracting resources?
    Not bad for this armchair scientist!
    I believe what you are doing is statistical analysis, not science.
    there are several more pieces to the equation:
    1. Natural gas runs dry in 2017, just 13 years away.
    Please provide support for this assumption.
    2. Coal is good for a while, but pollutes the heck out of the atmosphere and waterways, oceans, etc., interrupting the food chain...
    If I didn't think coal was a bad source of energy before this point is certainly not going to convince me. How does coal pollute the oceans anyway?
    3. Nuclear fission is good to go for a couple hundred years, by which time either we've perfected fusion or we're really stupid and deserve to let bacteria inherit the planet.
    "If humanity does not advance the way I expect it to then humanity is really stupid". This is not exactly a great way to support the assumption that fusion will develop in two hundred years. Surely you can come up with better evidence to support your contention.
    5. All the solar, wind, tide, and geothermal sources combined won't amount to but a small fraction of our current needs, much less our future needs.
    Using today's technology of course. They could be improved as well. There is a lot of energy tied up in solar, wind and geothermal. The question is can we tap it effectively.
    As for the nuclear nay-sayers - countless studies have proven the safety of nuclear energy over alternative forms of energy - and that's based on decades old, active-cooling reactor designs. Current, passive-cooling, dynamically stable reactors pose but a tiny fraction of the threat, and, if adopted, will reduce nuclear energy's detriments to incredibly small fraction of the detriments posed by alternative forms of energy.
    I actually agree with this point. You might want to provide a sample of the "countless studies" though. Glom can help you here.
    1. Write your Congressman. You're all scientists!!! They'll listen to you!!!
    Although I'm not an American I strongly suspect you're being naive here at how much the political system listens to scientists. Perhaps you can point out some previous examples of this technique working.
    2. Research the facts and give them the facts.
    3. When they realize they have 1,000 letters from scientists pouring in, all of which are on the same sheet of music, and that all the letters invalidate the widely varying research from a number of different lobbying groups, they'll go, "Gasp! I think there's something to this!!!"
    See my comments to 1
    4. Write your President. If Congress chucks too many of your letters, then the President, receiving all 1,000 in his own office, will have little recourse but to give it serious consideration and "Gasp! I think there's something to this!!!"
    Gosh, and here all these people are wasting their time forming lobby groups and spend countless millions lobbying the US government when all they needed to do was write some letters. :roll: See my comments to 1.
    At which point the Congressional Inquiry begins.
    That takes ten years, at which point natural gas has just three years remaining. A crisis is declared <snip>
    At this point we have an idealized long-range future scenario so I won't comment.
    But I'm more amazed at the apathy of readers like you who read this stuff and...DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT Why?
    Why are you spending the next 2 hours on this board when you could spend the next 20 minutes writing both your Congressmen and your President?
    Perhaps because your arguments are unconvincing.
    Dudes and Dudettes - if we bite the dust in 44 years, it's YOUR fault - the fault of apathy.
    The "if" is important here as your predictions are likely wrong.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,686

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Reasons why my OR stands as is:

    Title of the poll:

    How stupid are you?
    End of unsolicited post:

    Pathetic, people.

    Get with it.
    Putdown of anyone whose earlier posts disagreed with
    genebujold's OP and data contained therein:

    Ahhh... At last! Some intelligent examination of the problem!
    Chauvinistic and uninformed attitude toward the world outside the United States:

    It is a justice that speaks for Arabs as well as Christians.
    Surprise! Some Arabs are Christians. Ever been to Lebanon?

    If you're at all like the average American, European, Eurasian, Asian, Indonesian, Chinamen, or Japanese...
    Most Chinese find that term offensive. Even if it's used correctly, contextually, in the singular.

    I could go on, but the evangelistic zeal combined with the inability to question the basic premise and data here make me wonder if the current poster isn't a coberst sockpuppet (or vice versa).

    Then again, given the poster's listed location, perhaps that fireball did occur, and cause at least one casualty. 8)

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,149
    Quite apart from the fact that the US is the most energy-hungry nation on the planet, and I suggest you get your own house in order before proceeding to hector the rest of us, Gene, you've not quite insulted and offended me enough, yet. Do you think a bit more might persuade me to agree with your argument?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Stylesjl
    Food production, Petroleum products, and Power generation will be subsided by the government WHEN THE OIL STARTS RUNNING LOW when people are not driving cars about three quarters of oil is saved probaly giving oil another 150 years enough time to think of alternative energy
    It´s important to bear in mind that the leap for the next energy matrix(say, fusion) will require...energy. We´ve got to have energy to research new forms of energy. The transition to fusion has to be made upon the fossil base we have now, and we have to do it while oil is still relatively abundant. Else things are going to be far more difficult.

  8. #38
    An FTW interview with Matthew Simmons on Electricity and Peak Oil. My apologies for the length of the post but I thought it was germaine to the discussion and raises some new issues.

    Link

    Behind the Blackout


    An Energy Investment Banker and Bush Energy Advisor Gives Unexpected Answers on the Northeast Power Grid, Peak Oil and Gas, and Much More


    Matthew Simmons is the CEO of the world's largest Energy Investment Bank, Simmons & Company International. Its clients include Halliburton; Baker, Botts, LLP; Dynegy; Kerr-McGee; and the World Bank. Since 1993, it has underwritten or financed 18 transactions valued at more than $350 million. Of those, six were valued at more than $1 billion. Simmons is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and serves on the National Petroleum Council's Natural Gas Task Force. He has a lot to say about the Northeast power grid blackout, its causes, and what they imply for the future. He also has a lot to say about Peak Oil and Gas.

    Surprisingly, and with remarkable candor flowing from a sense of urgency he communicates at every one of his presentations to global energy experts, Simmons delivers a message that sounds more like a Democratic "New Deal" plank than a Republican Party free-market love fest. He is an arch foe of economists who insist that investment and technology will solve what he and a growing number of energy industry experts call an unsolvable and permanent decline in hydrocarbon energy resources.


    Deregulation was the primary cause of the failure on Black Thursday, August 14. But, as far as Matt Simmons is concerned, to stop there and pretend everything is okay if only more infrastructure is built borders on suicidal behavior.


    Matt Simmons will be the first to tell you that what he says has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with survival. He is a man of seeming contradictions by virtue of his opposition to the environmental movement on the one hand and his absolute dislike of energy deregulation in the 1990s on the other. There are very few who have interacted with him from any camp who doubt either his honesty or his sincerity. For that reason alone, what this insider has to say about the Northeast Power Grid collapse deserves our fullest attention. His words carry weight in Washington and around the world. Black Thursday was, he says, only the beginning.


    ----------


    FTW interviewed Simmons via telephone from his home in Rockport, Maine on August 18, 2003


    FTW: What's the most important thing you want the American people to know about Black Thursday?


    SIMMONS: This blackout ought to be an incredible jolt telling us about a host of energy problems that are ultimately going to prevent any future economic growth. It's like people have been ignoring annoying phone calls and living in denial about a problem that won't go away. It's like the ghost of Enron calling. The event itself was astonishing. Senior people like Governor Pataki or the head of NERC [North American Electric Reliability Council] were asking how this could happen. But the problem was inevitable. The only thing we didn't know was when it would happen.


    FTW: What did happen?


    Simmons: On a large scale what happened was deregulation. Deregulation destroyed excess capacity. Under deregulation, excess capacity was labeled as "massive glut" and removed from the system to cut costs and increase profits. Experience has taught us that weather is the chief culprit in events like this. The system needs to be designed for a 100-year cyclical event of peak demand. If you don't prepare for this, you are asking for a massive blackout. New plants generally aren't built unless they are mandated, and free markets don't make investments that give one percent returns. There was also no investment in new transmission lines.


    Underlying all this is the fact that we have no idea how to store electricity. And every aspect of carrying capacity, from generators, to transmission lines, to the lines to and inside your house, has a rated capacity of x. When you exceed x, the lines melt. That's why we have fuse boxes and why power grids shut down. So we have now created a vicious cyclicality that progresses over time.


    Another problem was that with deregulation, people thought that they could borrow from their neighbor. New York thought it could borrow from Vermont. Ohio thought that it could borrow from Michigan, etc. That works, but only up to the point where everyone needs to borrow at once and there's no place to go.


    A second major reason is that decisions were made in the 1990s that all new generating plants were to be gas fired. We've had a natural gas summit this year and, as you know, I have been talking for some time about the natural gas cliff we are experiencing. Many thought that this winter would be deadly, and I have to say that it's just a miracle that we have replenished our gas stocks going into the cold months. This winter could have been a major disaster. We've seen a price collapse in natural gas to the five to eight dollar range (per thousand cubic feet) and the only reason that happened was throughout almost the entire summer there were only a handful of days when the temperature rose above eighty degrees anywhere. That was miraculous. It allowed us to prepare for the winter but we shouldn't be optimistic. One good hurricane that disrupts production, one blazing heat wave, one freezing winter after that and we're out of solutions.


    FTW: And natural gas too?


    Simmons: Well, I know you understand it, but people need to understand the concept of peaking and irreversible decline. It's a sharper issue with gas, which doesn't follow a bell curve but tends to fall off a cliff. There will always be oil and gas in the ground, even a million years from now. The question is, will you be a microbe to go down and eat the oil in small pockets at depths no one can afford or is able to drill to? Will you spend hundreds of thousands to drill a gas well that will run dry in a few months? All the big deposits have been found and exploited. There aren't going to be any dramatic new discoveries and the discovery trends have made this abundantly clear.


    We are now in a box we should never have gotten into and it has very serious implications. We also see the inevitable issues that follow a major blackout: no water, no sewage, no gasoline. The gasoline issue is very important. Our gasoline stocks are at near all time lows. With the blackout, more than seven hundred thousand barrels per day of refinery capacity were shut down. People were told to boil their water. So what do they do, they go to their electric stove which isn't working. What then?


    FTW: Makes you wonder about France and the heat wave that has killed 5,000.


    Simmons: The only reason Europe was spared a far worse blackout than what hit the USA was that Europe barely uses air conditioning. In fact, even though America uses a lot of air conditioning some areas have become fairly efficient in the ways they use it. Quantitatively, we use more energy because there are more of us. But air conditioning is a relatively new experience in Ontario, Canada. Until recently Ontario had been a net energy exporter. They have a population of just over 12 million. With air conditioning in the last five years, Ontario became a net importer of electricity. Now, on just a normal hot summer day, Ontario's peak power use averages about 23,000 Gigawatts.


    Texas, with a population of 25 million, set an all time record of 60,000 Gigawatts just a week before the blackout. The difference is that except for one tiny line running into Arkansas, Texas is self-contained for electricity. It's not tied to any other users. As we saw on Black Thursday, Ottawa was part of a whole interlocking system that had no place to go but down.


    FTW: So how big a factor was the weather?


    Simmons: It was THE factor in my opinion. To show much weather determines power use, in the week of August 3rd, the US set an all-time national record for electricity use of 90,000 Gigawatts. The Mid-Atlantic States' use of power had jumped 29.5% over last year and 20% over just the previous four weeks. Why? The temperature had been as hot as we experienced on Black Thursday. If you want to compare it to vehicles and roadways, air conditioning is the interstate highway system and the Internet is the equivalent of SUVs. Everything that happened on August 14 started in the 17th hour. (5 PM at various local times). That's when everything is running at once: industrial, residential, and commercial. This is when demand peaks regardless of the weather. And we know that in hour 17 on that day the US experienced all-time peak energy use. That's when the system tripped out.


    FTW: So we have two basic camps saying that the problems are generating capacity and transmission lines, without addressing feedstock issues. What about the advocates for deregulation who argued that there would be more generating capacity as a result?


    Simmons: History answers that one. Following the 1965 blackout when NERC was created there was a mandate that publicly owned and regulated power providers had to build new plants. Every five years, ten per cent was added to the generating base. As deregulation was implemented in the 1990s, it was argued that it would open up vast quantities of energy in neighboring states. In the first five years of the decade, only four per cent capacity was added over the entire period. In the second five years, only two per cent was added.


    In the summer of 1999, we had thirty consecutive power events which unleashed the single biggest construction boom in history which built 220 thousand megawatts of new plants at a capitalization cost of six to seven hundred thousand dollars per megawatt. Ninety-eight per cent of those plants were gas fired.


    It was decided to use solely natural gas plants for several reasons. Coal fired plants took five to seven years to build. They are very dirty environmentally and the permit process is difficult. We have built on all the available hydroelectric sites we can build on. Nuclear is unpopular and expensive. Oil fired plants are remnants of the days when oil was cheap. Those days are not coming back because Peak Oil is with us now. Besides that, oil fired power plants are about the least efficient use of a barrel of oil that I can imagine. That left natural gas and the economists mistakenly presumed there would be large supplies. But natural gas plants were built with no supplies. Synthetic contracts were used, Enron-style, to sell gas futures when the gas didn't necessarily exist.


    FTW: Assuming that there was enough feed stock to run the new plants how much building are we talking about?


    Simmons: Each state would need to build forty to fifty per cent excess capacity. A forty per cent cushion merely provides the chance to withstand a day of high summer heat and the chance to grow by about 3% per year for three years.


    FTW: Yet even if we re-regulate there are still going to be problems with feed stock to power the plants. How serious is that?


    Simmons: Someone's going to be left holding the bag big time. If natural gas consumption surges in ten days of excessive heat then it would require almost a complete shutdown of industrial consumption to compensate and protect the grid. As I have been reporting for years now, there isn't going to be enough gas to run those plants, let alone new ones.


    FTW: You mean shut down the economy for ten days to keep people from cooking?


    Simmons: Yes.


    FTW: Everyone keeps saying that ANWR (The Arctic Natural Wildlife Reserve) is the answer if we drill there. Is it?


    Simmons: ANWR is not "The Answer." However, it makes great sense to develop. Drilling there should not have a negative impact on the coastal plains of the Arctic. With great luck, it could create between 300,000 and possibly up to 1.5 million barrels of oil a day and lots of natural gas that could last a decade or two. But this does not become the sole answer. On the other hand, if ANWR is kept off limits, it becomes no answer.


    FTW: What about imports of natural gas from overseas? Russia and Indonesia have huge reserves; Canada, as the Canadians are painfully aware, is almost depleted when it comes to natural gas.


    Simmons: Indonesia's gas fields are very old. Its Natuna gas fields, a source of stranded gas that gets discussed all the time has 95% CO2 and apparently costs about $40 billion to develop a mere 1 bcf/day of dry gas. Russia has four old fields that make up over 80% of their gas supply and they all are in decline. Canada's decline problems are as serious as the US.


    FTW: Windmills? Solar?


    Simmons: There's no way they can replace even a portion of hydrocarbon energy.


    FTW: Reducing consumption?


    Simmons: Reducing consumption has to happen, but many of the favorite conservation concepts make little overall difference. The big conservation changes end up being steps, like a ban on using electricity to either heat water or melt metals and instead, always using the "burner tip of natural gas". The latter is vastly more efficient, the energy savings are enormous and we need lower ceilings and smaller rooms. We need mass transit, and to eliminate traffic congestion. Finally, we need a way to keep people from using air-conditioning when the weather gets really muggy and hot at same time. The strain this puts on our grid is too overwhelming.


    We also must begin to use our current discretionary power during the nighttime. All of theses steps are hard to implement but they make a difference.


    FTW: What is the solution?


    Simmons: I don't think there is one. The solution is to pray. Pray for mild weather and a mild winter. Pray for no hurricanes and to stop the erosion of natural gas supplies. Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it's a certainty.


    FTW: On that cheery note let's take a look at oil supplies.


    Simmons: Currently, oil supply issues are as serious as the electrical grid. Last month the IEA (International Energy Agency) updated their database. They had for years been talking about a coming huge surge in non-OPEC supply, excluding the FSU (Former Soviet Union). It hasn't happened. We have the highest oil prices in 20 years and even great technological advances have not had a measurable impact on discovery or production.


    FTW: I have recently noted the speed with which the Chad-Cameroon pipeline was built and switched on. Chad only has estimated reserves of around 900 million barrels (World consumption is I billion barrels every 12 days). I see a sense of urgency there.


    Simmons: It's amazing. What's that pipeline going to pump, fifty thousand barrels per day? That figure may go up, but it's inconsequential in the long run. It's a sign of how strapped world supplies really are and that we may be finding out that we are already over the peak.


    FTW: What about Iraq and Saudi Arabia? We have been following Iraq closely and all the sabotage, infrastructure damage and the pipeline bombings are actually reducing Iraqi capacity. That leaves Saudi Arabia with 25% of known reserves.


    Simmons: I have for years described two camps: the economists who told us that technology would always produce new supply and the pessimists or Cassandras who told us that peak was coming in maybe fifteen or twenty years. We may be finding out that we went over the peak in 2000. That makes both camps wrong.


    Over the last year. I have obtained and closely examined more than 100 very technical production reports from Saudi Arabia. What I glean from examining the data is that it is very likely that Saudi Arabia, already a debtor nation, has very likely gone over its Peak. If that is true, then it is a certainty that planet earth has passed its peak of production.


    What that means, in the starkest possible terms, is that we are no longer going to be able to grow. It's like with a human being who passes a certain age in life. Getting older does not mean the same thing as death. It means progressively diminishing capacity, a rapid decline, followed by a long tail.


    FTW: What about people like Alan Greenspan and popular writers who tell us that there is no basic problem with energy supplies? Others offer us hydrogen, which is laughed out of hand by people who have looked at its feasibility and efficiency.


    Simmons: Basically they just don't get it. Some of them have gotten lazy. They were so carried away by the arguments of the economists that they stopped doing their homework. Month by month, and year by year, events are proving them systematically and thoroughly incorrect. They just don't get it. Right now, there is a deluge of stories on the wonders of hydrogen. This is another area of great confusion. Hydrogen is not a primary source of energy. For a Hydrogen Era to occur you need an abundance of natural gas, or you need to create a great deal of new power plants using coal and nuclear power. What I find so ironic about our very serious energy problems is that they started in Santa Barbara in 1969. This was where the best work was being done to create a new technological evolution in our ability to recover energy from deep water sources. Then we had a tragic spill. This gave birth to the environmental movement. It began the war between modern energy and environmental "anarchists". They have worked overtime to shut down our access to areas that might have diversified our energy supply. Had we been able to develop these areas, then we would have more options now to ensure a continuation of the economic prosperity we take so much for granted. And there is no better friend of the environment that economic prosperity.

    FTW: But peak oil is peak oil, is it not? Aren't we just talking about something that would have delayed the inevitable for a few years? It would take a couple of years to drill and pipe out of ANWR but there's only a two year (total US) supply of gas there at best, and even less oil. Then what? At the ASPO conference in Paris, I think it was you or another expert who disclosed that four out of five very expensive deep water holes were coming up dry?

    Simmons: Peaking of oil and gas will occur, if it has not already happened, and we will never know when the event has happened until we see it "in our rear view mirrors."

    FTW: Is it time for Peak Oil and Gas to become part of the public policy debate? Simmons: It is past time. As I have said, the experts and politicians have no Plan B to fall back on. If energy peaks, particularly while 5 of the world's 6.5 billion people have little or no use of modern energy, it will be a tremendous jolt to our economic well-being and to our heath -- greater than anyone could ever imagine.

    ---------

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,247

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by Musashi
    In fact, I think that cycle has been going on for quite some time. Every 10-20 years there seems to be a report that we only have 10-20 years of oil left. Odd.
    Yes, I learned that back in elementary school (I'm 28...). Since 20 years ago we had 20 years left and now we have 40 years left, its reasonable to assume that in 20 more years, we'll have 60 years left! I'm not seeing a problem...

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    13,886
    russ_watters wrote:

    Since 20 years ago we had 20 years left and now we have 40 years left, its reasonable to assume that in 20 more years, we'll have 60 years left
    And since I'm about twice your age in another 28 years I'll be 112...

    :wink:

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,452

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by russ_watters
    Quote Originally Posted by Musashi
    In fact, I think that cycle has been going on for quite some time. Every 10-20 years there seems to be a report that we only have 10-20 years of oil left. Odd.
    Yes, I learned that back in elementary school (I'm 28...). Since 20 years ago we had 20 years left and now we have 40 years left, its reasonable to assume that in 20 more years, we'll have 60 years left! I'm not seeing a problem...
    It's kind of sad they way it's almost impossible to discuss OIL and the need for fuel energy, without some small mention of the tiny middle east and small politics but here it goes:
    clearly Russ wasn't paying attention in class 8-[ ..if you missed class just check your 60mins or CNN to do a little catch up on geography, the price of Oil is a big concern and many of us seem pre-occupied with getting those pipe lines flowing that's how serious it is...well you know the Osama issue ( big beard evil radical guy ) no one seems to care there's a big evil terror group alive and well moving around Asia, the middle East and North Africa possibly planning something nasty soon ..well he just got sidelined and his people are not on the 'To do' list anymore..seems there are other issues bad financial scandlas and getting that Iraq oil to keep industry moving has become priority numero uno, so much for the other important matters everyone is just bogged down in Iraq and concered about the price fixings the Saudi rich merchants are making. Why the quest for a nice pipe line
    well it goes like this
    could put it all in a very simple manner
    it goes a little like this: most of the resources in the middle East have Oil and pertoleum in its purest form..there are other sources of Oil and Gas like blasting apart areas of Alsaka or digging miles down under the Atlantic Ocean but the oil here is difficult to manage, hard to extract,
    it's kind of causing a little economic crisis, but you don't have to wait for it to run bone dry
    As VMA131Marine-Bad Newbie said
    What peak oil means is that, probably sometime between now and 2010 mankind will have consumed half of the recoverable oil on the planet. The recoverable part is important because even in oil fields that are now deemed to be "dead" there is lots of oil left

  12. #42

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by russ_watters
    Quote Originally Posted by Musashi
    In fact, I think that cycle has been going on for quite some time. Every 10-20 years there seems to be a report that we only have 10-20 years of oil left. Odd.
    Yes, I learned that back in elementary school (I'm 28...). Since 20 years ago we had 20 years left and now we have 40 years left, its reasonable to assume that in 20 more years, we'll have 60 years left! I'm not seeing a problem...
    The problem is that the world economic system, by definition, is only healthy when it's growing, and it relies on cheap energy for growth. It also requires on the supply of energy to grow, because more economic activity requires more energy to accomplish. Now, what happens when energy becomes supply rather than demand limited, as it will after the Hubbert Peak has passed? Since you are only 28 you don't remember what happened in 1973 when there was an oil embargo by the Middle East on the US. The crisis didn't last that long, but the disruption in supply (and the US was a lot closer to being energy independent then) caused rationing of gasoline and a huge increase in energy costs. Now imagine what happens when you reduce the amount of oil available by 3-4% per year, every year and combine it with a growing world demand. There's still plenty of oil in the system but not enough to give everyone what they want. Prices will have to rise to the point that they choke off demand to the level of the supply. Less energy in the system will mean economic activity contracts. It will no longer be cheaper to make something in China and ship it to the US because the energy cost of transporting it will become more important than the labour cost. In order to even begin to keep even with the reduction in oil availability, the US will have to build 1000 times more generating capacity from solar PV and wind turbines EVERY YEAR than have been built to date. Or it can build coal plants which a highly polluting and take 5-7 years to construct. Or it can build breeder reactors, the technology for which as power generators is not perfected.

    Global oil consumption has been increasing exponentially for decades. If half the earths endowment of oil has been consumed then it would only take the time to double consumption again (about 20-25 years) to consume all the rest of the oil assuming no limitation on supply. But, we know that supply is limited by how fast the oil can be extracted from the ground. Logically it follows that the rate of production will peak and then decline exponentially.

    I would also note that the estimate of Ultimate Recoverable Reserves has been between 1750 Gbbl and 2100 Gbbl for 30 years. The planet has now consumed about 950 Gbbl, or about half. Starting to see a pattern here?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,202
    I don't see how writing to a government official will change our economy. IMO, the world economy will fix itself. When oil becomes too expensive, alternative renewable sources may not look so expensive after all.

    From my viewpoint anyways, our economy is already in its transition. All of the major car companies are offering hybrid gasoline/fuel cell vehicles now. Computer technology is ever reaching its limits as microchips get smaller, the wires get close together, and they begin to produce more heat which is wasted energy. Megahurtz used to drive the computer industry, but we now find as the chips get smaller, we have to consider making them more energy efficient as well. Who watches TV? Many people do, and LCD technology is slowly replacing the CRT in television sets which requires much less energy to operate. How about those cheap florescent lights that you can buy in the stores now that screw into a normal light socket? They have 13w bulbs at my local walmart that give the equal amount of light that a 60w incandescent produces. I use these in my apartment, and encourage others to as well. White LED's are becomming more popular and coming down in price, and the amount of energy they require is even less than that of florescents.

    The above may look like small differences, but every little bit adds up. I could go on and on. These are just a few examples. Then again, our growing population may negate any efficiencies gained.

    I'm sure we're still doing a good job of shifting the scale ourselves though. When the need arises, alternatives will be found.

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by dvb
    I'm sure we're still doing a good job of shifting the scale ourselves though. When the need arises, alternatives will be found.
    That would be the old "We'll see the iceberg in time to avoid it theory I suppose. You're making the assumption that problems related to declining petroleum production will occur gradually enough to find a solution.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by VMA131Marine
    Quote Originally Posted by dvb
    I'm sure we're still doing a good job of shifting the scale ourselves though. When the need arises, alternatives will be found.
    That would be the old "We'll see the iceberg in time to avoid it theory I suppose. You're making the assumption that problems related to declining petroleum production will occur gradually enough to find a solution.
    We have all the solutions we need, it's just a matter of implementing them when oil prices become prohibitive. Right now the price of gasoline is hovering around the 90 cents a litre canadian mark where I live. When the price of gasoline reaches 2, 3, 4 dollars a litre, I think people will realize what they need to do. I'm sure that people are reminded every time they go to the gas station, and every time they get a gas or hydro bill of what needs to be done. Even government officials pay bills, so they're not naive of the problems either.

  16. #46

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by genebujold
    Personal solar panels are not only a possibility, they're a reality. They've been incorporated into roofing tiles since the mid-90's. A little more expensive, at $10,000 for a roof as opposed to $4,000, but the additional $6,000 you spend is equivalent over their estimated 10-year life span energy bill-equivalent of less than 5 years.
    $10,000?? That's a low-ball figure. A small system for a home runs more like $25,000 plus. The panels are good for longer than 10 years, it's just their output decreases as the coating on the cells degrades. Heck, where I work, we still have panels in our array that are over 20 years old and still putting out electricity. Advances are being made constantly to increase the efficiency of the cells, the life of the cell, and the maximum effective use of silicon. (i.e. cutting thinner wafers)
    [url]http://www.bpsolar.com/homesolutions/solarsavingsestimator.cfm[/url

    As for the price of Solar dropping drastically, I can't see it. Silicon is another resource, and, those holding the resource see a chance to earn more money. The Si used for solar is the left-over scrap from the semi-conductor industry. Solar grade silicon costs anywhere from $25 - $60 a kilogram, depending on where it comes from, and the purity. One kilogram of silicon has a maximum potential power output of about 130 watts at current production methods.

    Solar is a supplemental power, it can never sustain a civilization.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by jrkeller
    At that point who cares, I'll be dead. :roll: :roll:

  18. #48

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Confused
    Solar is a supplemental power, it can never sustain a civilization.
    Wrong! Solar power has sustained life on earth since it's inception. Except for the small amount of nuclear and geothermal power generated, all energy on earth ultimately derives from the sun

    1,750 Gb, the estimate of all the conventional oil that there ever was or ever will be, is less than the amount of sunlight that hits the earth in one 24 hour day.

    1,750 G-barrels x 5,800,000 BTU/barrel = 10.15 x 1018 BTU, which is less than ...
    445 BTU/ft²/hr x 24 hrs x 49,240,000 mi² x 5,280² ft²/mi² = 14.7 x 1018 BTU
    Some people say that "solar" is a diffuse, insignificant source of energy. How long would humanity survive if we had only oil to heat the earth?!

    [Note: 49 million mi² is the area intersecting the sun's light.]
    Furthermore, silicon is one of the most abundant elements on the planet being the principal molecular component of sand. Finally, PV technology is still in its relative infancy and I would guess that more efficient and less resource intensive panel will be developed in the future. They aren't available now however, which is one of the reasons why peak oil presents such a problem.

  19. #49

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    [quote="VMA131Marine"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Confused
    Solar is a supplemental power, it can never sustain a civilization.
    Wrong! Solar power has sustained life on earth since it's inception. Except for the small amount of nuclear and geothermal power generated, all energy on earth ultimately derives from the sun

    [quote]

    What I meant by that was that solar as electric generation is supplemental. There's no way to build enough panels to power just the US. I work for one of the largest solar production companies in the world.

    As for silicon being abundant, it is. However, solar grade silicon isn't. Silicon has to be processed to make it ready for the solar industry. Plus, there are many competing uses for silicon. There's the semi-conductor industry and the general manufacturing industry. Silicon-carbide and silicon-nitride are industrial abrasives used in cutting and grinding.

    Also, casting silicon into poly-crystalline silicon useable in solar panels is a touchy process. Slight variations in temperature inside a casting station can cause bad crystal structure invalidating the silicon as useable for panels. As it stands, it takes 240kg of good silicon going into the casting process to make 170kg of potentially useable silicon. That missing 70kg? About ten of it is sent out as waste in the cutting process. About 20 of it is totally useless and the other 40 can possible be tossed back into the casting stream, assuming it's not contaminated.

    Now, the 170 kg makes about about 9400 wafers. Then you lose about 10 - 15 % of them due to handling and defects. The remaining wafers get moved to the coating process where you lose about another 15 - 20%. Then the finished cell gets moved to the panel area where you lose another 2 - 4 %.

    You start with 240kg of silicon and, if things go well, you use maybe 120kg out the back door to the customer.

    Just because it's silicon, doesn't mean it can be turned into a solar panel.

  20. #50

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Confused
    Quote Originally Posted by VMA131Marine
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Confused
    Solar is a supplemental power, it can never sustain a civilization.
    Wrong! Solar power has sustained life on earth since it's inception. Except for the small amount of nuclear and geothermal power generated, all energy on earth ultimately derives from the sun


    What I meant by that was that solar as electric generation is supplemental. There's no way to build enough panels to power just the US. I work for one of the largest solar production companies in the world.
    Thanks for the explanation! However, this means that unless there is some technological breakthrough on the generation of electricity from the sun, the primary viable alternative to oil and natural gas is wind power. Not good when peak oil is only 5 years away at most.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom
    fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission fission
    yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

  22. #52
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,258

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by TriangleMan
    Quote Originally Posted by genebujold
    Stop making excuses and get busy.
    Okay, let's start with your post then:
    I ran the numbers myself using sources obtained from the federal government: <snip>

    Add them all together, then apply them against the projected energy consumption rates, and wall - 2048 is the last year a drop of oil will drive anything here on this planet.
    Of course as the resources get lower the price will rise. This will prompt decreased use of the resource and a further push towards alternatives. Once the price becomes prohibitive (say, $10.00US a gallon at the pump) use will decrease dramatically as the market will move towards fuel efficient cars, carpooling and so forth, similar to what happened during the energy crisis is the late 70s-early 80s

    Did you factor that into your calculation?
    Actually, the U.S. government factored that into their consumption rates from which I ran my calcs.

    Well, that was my theory, which seems to approximate Hubbert's own theory quite closely, with a current peak production, and a drop to just 20% of current production by 2050.
    No that's not close, you say by 2048 the resouce is effectively gone, Hubbert has lots of oil left by 2050. How old is Hubbert's theory anyway? Did he factor in improved efficiency in extracting resources?
    I've not compared his calcs to the current U.S. government calcs, but from a few things I've read, he underestimated third-world growth, use of, and dependance on oil
    Not bad for this armchair scientist!
    I believe what you are doing is statistical analysis, not science.
    Statistics is applied science
    there are several more pieces to the equation:
    1. Natural gas runs dry in 2017, just 13 years away.
    Please provide support for this assumption.
    2. Coal is good for a while, but pollutes the heck out of the atmosphere and waterways, oceans, etc., interrupting the food chain...
    If I didn't think coal was a bad source of energy before this point is certainly not going to convince me. How does coal pollute the oceans anyway?
    I suggest you type the following into Google and discover the wonder of the Internet for yourself instead of asking me to spoon-feed you. I would hope that as a scientist you would have learned to educate yourself by this time! "acid rain" and "ocean pollution"

    My point is this: When otherwise well-educated people say, "explain this to me," they're either:

    1. Lazy

    2. Being obstinate

    3. Truly ignorant

    4. No otherwise well-educated

    If it's the first two, and apology will do. If it's the latter two, no worries and have a nice life!
    3. Nuclear fission is good to go for a couple hundred years, by which time either we've perfected fusion or we're really stupid and deserve to let bacteria inherit the planet.
    "If humanity does not advance the way I expect it to then humanity is really stupid". This is not exactly a great way to support the assumption that fusion will develop in two hundred years. Surely you can come up with better evidence to support your contention.
    Are you saying that if we survive the oil bust with nuclear then idly sit by and let the opportunity for fusion to pass us by we somehow deserve better than bacterial status?
    5. All the solar, wind, tide, and geothermal sources combined won't amount to but a small fraction of our current needs, much less our future needs.
    Using today's technology of course. They could be improved as well. There is a lot of energy tied up in solar, wind and geothermal. The question is can we tap it effectively.
    Somewhat. No where NEAR enough.
    As for the nuclear nay-sayers - countless studies have proven the safety of nuclear energy over alternative forms of energy - and that's based on decades old, active-cooling reactor designs. Current, passive-cooling, dynamically stable reactors pose but a tiny fraction of the threat, and, if adopted, will reduce nuclear energy's detriments to incredibly small fraction of the detriments posed by alternative forms of energy.
    I actually agree with this point. You might want to provide a sample of the "countless studies" though. Glom can help you here.
    So can the Internet! Type "passive cooling" and "nuclear reactors" and "safe" into Google.
    1. Write your Congressman. You're all scientists!!! They'll listen to you!!!
    Although I'm not an American I strongly suspect you're being naive here at how much the political system listens to scientists. Perhaps you can point out some previous examples of this technique working.
    it's not that politicians listen to scientists. It's that when a lot of them get together and raise an issue, politically, publically (might require newspapers...), they will listen - often to far fewer numbers than the general populace, because while the media will downplay one, or a dozen scientists, they won't downplay 200 of them.
    2. Research the facts and give them the facts.
    3. When they realize they have 1,000 letters from scientists pouring in, all of which are on the same sheet of music, and that all the letters invalidate the widely varying research from a number of different lobbying groups, they'll go, "Gasp! I think there's something to this!!!"
    See my comments to 1
    Seen. Responded to. See my response
    4. Write your President. If Congress chucks too many of your letters, then the President, receiving all 1,000 in his own office, will have little recourse but to give it serious consideration and "Gasp! I think there's something to this!!!"
    Gosh, and here all these people are wasting their time forming lobby groups and spend countless millions lobbying the US government when all they needed to do was write some letters. :roll: See my comments to 1.
    Seen. Responded to. See my response.

    Look, people - I've swayed Congressmen to switch from one side of an issue to another with just ONE well-written letter. If I, a single individual can do that, how much more can several hundred of you do in unison? Are you that apathetic that you say, "oh, no - it can't be done..." instead of picking up your keyboards and typing away for less than 20 minutes???

    If so, if your that apathetic about the issue, you go ahead and decay while I and my progeny find a solution out of this mess!
    At which point the Congressional Inquiry begins.
    That takes ten years, at which point natural gas has just three years remaining. A crisis is declared <snip>
    At this point we have an idealized long-range future scenario so I won't comment.
    You just did.
    But I'm more amazed at the apathy of readers like you who read this stuff and...DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT Why?
    Why are you spending the next 2 hours on this board when you could spend the next 20 minutes writing both your Congressmen and your President?
    Perhaps because your arguments are unconvincing.
    Then why listen to me? Why don't you run the numbers for yourselves? Why are you saying, "Oh, well, the other guy said it would happen ten years later, so it's no big deal." Are you really that apathetic about the near future, the very survival of our society as we know it???
    Dudes and Dudettes - if we bite the dust in 44 years, it's YOUR fault - the fault of apathy.
    And, apparently, we've just seen a prime example of such apathy!
    The "if" is important here as your predictions are likely wrong.[/quote][quote]

    The cluebird really is trying to land on your shoulder, but you just keep shooing him away! I'll give you a hint - they're not "my" predictions. They're the predictions of the many scientists who've worked on this issue over the last 20 years for the United States Federal Government.

    I'm using their data, their conclusions - not mine. Data which is widely available for download or review in any major library.

    If you're THAT apathetic, you deserve to perish!

    Then again, you may just be old, in which case I'll say to you what I recently said to my father: "Do you care that little about your grandson, that you, by your inaction, would condemn him at the age of 45 to a life of hell because you refused to write a single, simple letter expressing your concern? Are you that unconcerned about caring for your progeny?

    Folks - if you're that unconcerned, then by all means grab the bag of chips and chow down. Drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you will die.

    The rest of us, however, one way or another, are going to live, and we're not going to take too kindly to a bunch of apathetic couch potatoes looking for a handout when they weren't willing to take a stand on the issues when it mattered!

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by genebujold
    I suggest you type the following into Google and discover the wonder of the Internet for yourself instead of asking me to spoon-feed you. I would hope that as a scientist you would have learned to educate yourself by this time! "acid rain" and "ocean pollution"
    I'd of thought you would have been at the BABB long enough to know that if you make the claim, you provide the back-up. Surely if you are so concerned about this issue and imploring us all to take action you can take that extra few minutes to provide your sources?

    Please provide a link to the government statistics you used, the evidence that natural gas will run out by 2017, one of the studies showing the safety of nuclear power, and, if you feel so inclined, how acid rain from coal is damaging the oceans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triangleman
    Quote Originally Posted by genebujold
    "If humanity does not advance the way I expect it to then humanity is really stupid". This is not exactly a great way to support the assumption that fusion will develop in two hundred years. Surely you can come up with better evidence to support your contention.
    Are you saying that if we survive the oil bust with nuclear then idly sit by and let the opportunity for fusion to pass us by we somehow deserve better than bacterial status?
    No, I'm saying your arguement on this point is poor and provides no evidence that supports your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by genebujold
    Quote Originally Posted by Triangleman
    Quote Originally Posted by genebujold
    5. All the solar, wind, tide, and geothermal sources combined won't amount to but a small fraction of our current needs, much less our future needs.
    Using today's technology of course. They could be improved as well. There is a lot of energy tied up in solar, wind and geothermal. The question is can we tap it effectively.
    Somewhat. No where NEAR enough.
    Well I'll take a page from your debating book and say that either we'll perfect solar, wind or geothermal or we're really stupid and deserve to let bacteria inherit the planet. (If this argument is not convincing you, please tell me why).

    I'll leave the issue on convincing US politicians alone, I'm not American and the topic is political, others may have more valid points on that matter.

    Then why listen to me? Why don't you run the numbers for yourselves?
    But how would we know that I'm running the same numbers that you are? That's why you need to provide them.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,345
    Gene...While I tend to agree with you that future energy sources are very important, I don't agree with your "setting a date" as to when we will "run out" of these sources. (Actually, it would be more accurate to say that I don't see the evidence to support your claim...)

    But that's not the "real" problem with this thread...that problem lies in your Delivery...

    This thread is basically, "If you don't agree with me, then you're apathetic or stupid. (You're words, not mine.) Don't you see that your "message" is all but lost among the many insulting assumptions you've made about the folks on this board??

    Like I said, I tend to agree with your opinion, ie, future energy sources are important...but the way you've chosen to express that opinion is all wrong.

    Sorry, that's just my opinion.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,258
    I sincerely tried to respond to the responders, but was told by the board's IQ (less than 1%, as it's a machine), that I could only "edit my own posts."

    Since I've been an HTML programmer with no less than 9 years of experience, I've no conclusion except to believe the "error-checking" of this board does not adhere to the IEEE-mandated standards of HTML posting.

    Bad Astronomer, with respect to HTML posting, there's a disconnect somewhere in your board between fiction and reality...

    I hope you find it!

    - Gene' Bujold

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,017
    Try hitting the "quote" button, not the "edit" button, GB.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,149

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by genebujold
    Folks - if you're that unconcerned, then by all means grab the bag of chips and chow down. Drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you will die.

    The rest of us, however, one way or another, are going to live, and we're not going to take too kindly to a bunch of apathetic couch potatoes looking for a handout when they weren't willing to take a stand on the issues when it mattered!
    Sorry, Gene. You'll be just as dead too, if the world goes to hell in a handbasket. You'll get to be all smug at us as however, which appears to be your main aim here. So that's something to look forward to.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Moose
    Try hitting the "quote" button, not the "edit" button, GB.
    lol, #-o

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,247

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by Manchurian Taikonaut
    Quote Originally Posted by russ_watters
    Quote Originally Posted by Musashi
    In fact, I think that cycle has been going on for quite some time. Every 10-20 years there seems to be a report that we only have 10-20 years of oil left. Odd.
    Yes, I learned that back in elementary school (I'm 28...). Since 20 years ago we had 20 years left and now we have 40 years left, its reasonable to assume that in 20 more years, we'll have 60 years left! I'm not seeing a problem...
    It's kind of sad they way it's almost impossible to discuss OIL and the need for fuel energy, without some small mention of the tiny middle east and small politics but here it goes:
    clearly Russ wasn't paying attention in class 8-[ ..if you missed class just check your 60mins or CNN to do a little catch up on geography, the price of Oil is a big concern and many of us seem pre-occupied with getting those pipe lines flowing that's how serious it is...well you know the Osama issue ( big beard evil radical guy ) no one seems to care there's a big evil terror group alive and well moving around Asia, the middle East and North Africa possibly planning something nasty soon ..well he just got sidelined and his people are not on the 'To do' list anymore..seems there are other issues bad financial scandlas and getting that Iraq oil to keep industry moving has become priority numero uno, so much for the other important matters everyone is just bogged down in Iraq and concered about the price fixings the Saudi rich merchants are making. Why the quest for a nice pipe line
    well it goes like this
    could put it all in a very simple manner
    it goes a little like this: most of the resources in the middle East have Oil and pertoleum in its purest form..there are other sources of Oil and Gas like blasting apart areas of Alsaka or digging miles down under the Atlantic Ocean but the oil here is difficult to manage, hard to extract,
    it's kind of causing a little economic crisis, but you don't have to wait for it to run bone dry
    As VMA131Marine-Bad Newbie said
    What peak oil means is that, probably sometime between now and 2010 mankind will have consumed half of the recoverable oil on the planet. The recoverable part is important because even in oil fields that are now deemed to be "dead" there is lots of oil left
    No, I was paying attention in class. All that economics, while probably true (if the premise is true) is a little complicated for a 4th grader. I remember it specifically because it scared me a little (that was the point, I think), that the statement was we'd run out in 20 years.

    Look, I'm not saying we don't have a problem, because we do (IMO, the coal issue is worse than the oil issue). But the answer is simple, obvious, and already available. Its just that people don't like it because of irrational fear (partially do to politics).

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,373

    Re: Apathy vs Oil vs Energy vs Survival

    Quote Originally Posted by russ_watters
    Look, I'm not saying we don't have a problem, because we do (IMO, the coal issue is worse than the oil issue). But the answer is simple, obvious, and already available. Its just that people don't like it because of irrational fear (partially do to politics).
    Actually, I think coal does give us energy security for a couple of hundreds years but there are environmental problems associated with it.

    The answer cannot be ignored forever. At the moment, it's easy to talk about how renewables will save the day and how non-renewables will fall by the way side when in fact they are happily churning out the joules. But, when the neglect of the non-renewables leads to their downfall, the fallacy on relying exclusively on them will be exposed.

    The UK government has set the ambitious target of 10% renewable by 2010. When they started, it was at 3% due mainly to HEP, which is developed to a large proportion of potential in our country (lucky Canada, so few people, so many glacial formations). Development is way behind schedule because wind is the only practical renewable for development here.

    Most certainly, the answer is important for the future energy mix.

    The problem is that there is a lot of propoganda about from you-know-who.

    I will cover alternatives on the FFF website.

    Don't take my breeder,
    Away from me.
    Don't leave me without U-233.

Similar Threads

  1. Survival Instincts
    By mugaliens in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-21, 08:41 PM
  2. NASA seeks to reverse youth apathy to ma
    By hhEb09'1 in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-05, 09:23 PM
  3. Intelligence: Survival value
    By rahuldandekar in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2005-May-14, 03:48 AM
  4. How long of Survival
    By Forealfc in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2004-Sep-20, 05:22 AM
  5. Survival of artifacts?
    By bonker in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2004-May-11, 06:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •