Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nuke33 on July 06, 2005, 11:10:51 PM
-
This is a really interesting website.. I thought this was a crackpot joke thing when I first started reading it, but it has some very very convincing points on the growing problems with the world depencence on oil..
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Home.html
If you're interested, take a serious read of this site and lets hear what you think.
And being 23 years old, I for one am 'slightly' freaked out.. This may hit hard during my generations lifetime.
-
Give me the date of peak on whale oil and we will talk.
-
I would say that I have a gun and I'm prepared, but according to that site I'll eventually run out of lube oil for it and then I'm really corn-cobbed.
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
I would say that I have a gun and I'm prepared, but according to that site I'll eventually run out of lube oil for it and then I'm really corn-cobbed.
better stock up on lube oil.
-
kinda wish i wouldnt have read that ...... 38
-
u dont need lube oil, they have this dry lube stuff for guns now. the troops in iraq use it and u can easily order it, plus it doesnt trap dirt n grime as bad as oil. So, all ur prepared gun owners will someday rule part of the WORLD HAHAHAHAAAAAA. have a nice day.:aok
-
In 45 years we went from horse and buggy, into space. Colour me unworried about this one.
-
I thought this might have been a topic of intelligent discussion when I posted it, but apparently not.. Maybe that's exactly why something like this might happen.. Nobody thinks its real until it hits..
Somehow I also dont think you guys have really taken a good read of that website.. Either that or the basic economic principles are too difficult to understand for some of you..
-
Originally posted by Nuke33
I thought this might have been a topic of intelligent discussion when I posted it, but apparently not.. Maybe that's exactly why something like this might happen.. Nobody thinks its real until it hits..
Somehow I also dont think you guys have really taken a good read of that website.. Either that or the basic economic principles are too difficult to understand for some of you..
Well, considering in 2050 I'll be 68 years old it isn't worrying me too much. Face it, most of the BBS will be dead by then :aok Another reason I'm not worrying? According to that site there is nothing we can do about it. The point of stressing over something that is an eventuality? None.
-
I agree with Nuke33 - anybody who is not concerned about this must not have read the website fully.
While his specific conclusions may be on the end-of-the-world sensationalist/disaster side, its hard to argue with his overall theme. Oil is going to be a tough act to follow.
I followed some of the hyperlinks, too, just to make sure he was honest with his facts.
-
You can make oil.
You can make it out of plants, it is not very hard to do at all (already there are many people running diesels on vegtable oil). You can make it out of other hydrocarbons such as coal. You can make it in a bioreactor.
If the cost of in ground oil reaches the stage where these other sources of oil become economic then they will start to appear.
That is how cars and trucks can be run.
Trains, busses and subways can be converted to electricity. You can make electricity using nuclear generation and suppliment it with other non hydrocarbon generation methods such as wind power and solar power and geothermal and hydro power.
The big prize in the energy producing game is doing what nature does. Make a fusion reactor like the sun and turn hydrogen into helium. Then you would have unlimited power.
-
Oh boo hoooo hooo... the sky is falling...
There is probly more undiscovered oil than we have allready used... it also seems to replenish itself.
We will maybe have an uncomfortable short period while we switch over to some other energy source..
all the crying and hand wringing is a waste of time.. things will work out and you will be pissed that you ever read the stupid website and were gullible enough to lose hair over it.
lazs
-
If you guys read the article, you would know the author does not dispute that oil can be made from alternatives. But it is much more expensive, less efficient, and will take years to be integrated in the economy to the extent that cheap oil is. That is the gist of his doomsaying - that even though alternatives are available, the shocks caused by peaking out on oil (where production declines 3%/yr (Cheney even claims this) while the world economy and population continue to demand more oil, and speculators drive up the price - these shocks will come too rapidly for the economy to deal with and the world will have a catastrophic financial meltdown.
Now that is 'sky is falling' rhetoric based on indepedently extrapolating present trends. We can assume that the real trends will be interdependent and self-moderating, and so his claims are absolutely worst case and won't be realized. Plus he seems something of a huckster as his website offers items for sale related to the predicted crisis.
Having said that, I believe cheap oil is a non-renewable resource until I see scientific proof otherwise. In 1998, oil was around $10-15 a barrel, and now its over $60. I'm not selling the SUV just yet, but I probably won't own another one, and I'll probably make the switch from a powerboat to a sailboat in the next few years. Soon as I'm too old to slalom.
-
or... you could get an electric golf cart like all those handwringers did in the early 70's when the sky fell on us.
lazs
-
I think I'd rather bike, and its better for you anyway.
-
In the late 19th century pre-eminent economist, and noted know it all, Robert Malthus predicted that the world population would outstrip the food supply. He predicted famine and disease. He had all the scientific facts known at the time. And, indeed, he was correct, if the world would have stayed at the technological level then known. But an amazing thing happened, namely, the world changed. Forces he could not have possible foreseen changed the equations that he based his theories on. Obviously, the world did not starve itself out of existence.
This should serve as the grain of salt with which to understand doomsayers.
-
you guys rememeber all the "survivalist" guys that were running around in the late 70's and 80's... allmost had me going... looked like fun.
If all you handwringers would sell your cars there would less of you in my way at the pumps.
lazs
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
In the late 19th century pre-eminent economist, and noted know it all, Robert Malthus predicted that the world population would outstrip the food supply. He predicted famine and disease. He had all the scientific facts known at the time. And, indeed, he was correct, if the world would have stayed at the technological level then known. But an amazing thing happened, namely, the world changed. Forces he could not have possible foreseen changed the equations that he based his theories on. Obviously, the world did not starve itself out of existence.
This should serve as the grain of salt with which to understand doomsayers.
I submit to you that the game is not over yet. But yeah, there are alot of unseen forces out there.
Was Euell Gibbons one fo those survivalist guys? Or was he just a naturalist? I never did eat a pine tree. Though I do like pine nuts.
-
he was a naturalist I believe... the survivalists were food and fuel hoarders with a cache of firearms and medical supplies. They believed in civilizations imminent collapse and anarchy (no such luck)... they were armed to the teeth and used 12 volt systems and all sorts of alternative power sources along with underground diesel tanks... some converted cars or trucks to diesel.
Some of the things they did are fairly common now like wind and solar power and diesel or electric vehicles and... who in their right mind can argue against the prudence of being heavily armed with a good supply of ammo and the ability to make it?
lazs
-
The variables in a problem like this out wiegh anyones ability to understand the current situtation; let alone make predictions of what the situation might be in the future.
I still remember my rather dull high school chemistry teacher decrying the loss of garbage space; he predicted that we would run out of room for garbage in 2005. He obviously never drove through NV.
Anywho, look at who this guy is:
Matt Savinar was born and raised in California. He received his undergraduate degree in Political Science from the University of California at Davis. He received his law degree from the University of California at Hastings College of the Law, is a California licensed attorney.
He is not an economist, he is not a scientist, or math guy. He is an attorney with a poly sci degree. Trust me on this (I am a CA attorney with a history degree), he is not a very reliable source.
-
well put jeezy but... those who like doom and gloom will not be disswayed by a little logic. They will simply scour the internet for more proof of end of the world...
why do they do it? damned if I know.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well put jeezy but... those who like doom and gloom will not be disswayed by a little logic. They will simply scour the internet for more proof of end of the world...
why do they do it? damned if I know.
lazs
Some like being pessimists.
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
Anywho, look at who this guy is:
Matt Savinar was born and raised in California. He received his undergraduate degree in Political Science from the University of California at Davis. He received his law degree from the University of California at Hastings College of the Law, is a California licensed attorney.
He is not an economist, he is not a scientist, or math guy. He is an attorney with a poly sci degree. Trust me on this (I am a CA attorney with a history degree), he is not a very reliable source.
The fact that he's a lawyer by profession has nothing to do with his ability to direct to reliable sources.. If you've taken the time, like I said to really go through it, you would understand that there are very reliable and convincing arguments..
I also submit as oboe did that the game is not over yet and that there are unforseen forces at work, however something better change and change fast or this will eventually become a reality whether anyone wants to believe it or not in my opinion..
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
I still remember my rather dull high school chemistry teacher decrying the loss of garbage space; he predicted that we would run out of room for garbage in 2005. He obviously never drove through NV.
i reasearched that in a paper i wrote in college....
back in the early 80's there were all sorts of rumors going around about garbage, and then the whole MOBRO barge incident happened (see here (http://www.queenstribune.com/archives/featurearchive/feature2001/0208/feature_story.html) ). the story got blown out of proportion by the media, and the press had a feeding frenzy on the affairs of garbage in the country. of course this barge couldn't go anywhere, all the landfills were full. (oh yeah, the guy trying to profit on the garbage had mob affiliations not mentioned in the major press)
it was almost this incident alone that led to the EPA producing reports on the "epidemic" of garbage.
late in 1999 (i can't find the article now, but it is out there) a man who was no longer with the EPA admitted the reports were flawed, and used erronious calculations. it didn't matter, the damage was done.
just like jEEZY said, even a college professor fell into the trap of mis-information (what a shock LMAO).
here we sit today knowing that the entire pile of garbage for the whole continential US for 100 years can be piled into 1 single fill 30 miles by 30 miles, and 800 feet tall. now it is not feesable to do, but look at the total dimensions. break it up to smaller bits, and it is easily taken care of. the only problem now is NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
-
Originally posted by Nuke33
The fact that he's a lawyer by profession has nothing to do with his ability to direct to reliable sources..
True enough, however, his profession has trained him to advocate. Meaning he is directing you to sites that will support his position without giving you any persepective--that's what he does for a living (although it does not look like he is presently employed).
I am not saying he is trying to mislead you. But he is probably got an agenda, and is trying to argue his point. I looked at his sources, indeed many of them are legit. But I could prove any number of doomsday scenerios with legit statistics. Like running out of food, or the spread of epidemic disease, or dying by violent crime, or global climate change.
But the issue is when does reseach turn in to advocacy. I fear the two have become so interetwined in our society that one cannot rightfully tell the difference from the other.
-
Peak oil might have positive effects too. We western people have the money and factories to start using alternative energy storaging methods quickly. Most likely gasoline will be replaced by various different methods competiting eachothers. Its not hard to imagine something good coming out from such competition.
However, poor countries cannot adapt and their economies could take much bigger hits while ours might actually get a boost (at their expense probably).
Things will change, but thats the nature of life. Change is good and the faster we have to face it the better.
-
Not that I'm quaking in my boots about the end of the world, or stockpiling food, medicine and ammo, but what is the "little logic" that is supposed to reassure me?
Don't Worry, be Happy? Something will turn up that will prevent the catastrophe, because it always has in the past?
He discounts ethanol as an alternative fuel source, because it takes more energy as input to make a unit of ethanol than the ethanol delivers in return. I have heard that before, yet my State is getting pretty hooked on ethanol because its appealing politically - its another market for the farmers' corn.
I don't think everything he says is bunk - I haven't read anything on his site that I know to be untrue. I just think he has connected the dots and drawn a practically impossible worst case scenario conclusion - the end of civilization as we know it. Interestingly, he doesn't have a magic product for sale that will save you - he just offers educational materials that reinforce his beliefs.
The theory I have about pessimists/optimists is that it corresponds to a person's appearance--optimists tend to be good looking; pessimists not so much. Obviously, then, Mr. Savinar has a face only a mother could love...
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
...But the issue is when does reseach turn in to advocacy. I fear the two have become so interetwined in our society that one cannot rightfully tell the difference from the other.
I think this is true as well. At times it seems there really is no objective science being done anymore.
-
Invest in horse brokers and carriage manufacturers....buy property and grow horse food. As a thing expands, it will inevitably retract, then expand again...and the cycle repeats itself again and again. When its all said and done it wont matter anyway because you were never here to begin with.
-
The depencence on oil is driven by economics. As oil gets more expensive, alternative energy sources will become competitive in cost. Eventually, someone will come up with high energy density light weight battery technology which will open a whole new era in renewable energy. Maybe someone will figure out how to make nuclear fission waste non-hazardous.
Until then, revel that people figured out what to do with all that black gunk that used to just contaiminate the farmland. Maybe, just maybe, by 2050 we can deplete all the oil reserves from the middle east. I support that.
Regards,
Malta
-
Well, some of his arguments are pretty specious, like the amount of fossil energy required to produce anything: much of that is transportation, and much of that is flexible.
Oh yeah, and the notion that being energy-conscious is counterproductive shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.
Okay, if your costs are $1500, and $1000 of that is fossil fuel, if you save $500 on fossil fuel, you move from being 67% to 50% reliant on fossil fuel. Now if, per his example, you invest that money in the bank, and the bank invests in other businesses at 10-12 times the amount you invest, if those companies do the same as you (reasonable as you yourself decided to do it), then much less of that investment money is going into fossil fuels that otherwise -- but even more likely -- if you cut the customer a break, then fossil fuels become a smaller part of the pie.
and how does he justify saying that researching alternate energy resources will result in war with the Chinese?
Still, he's right about a couple of things. For the last 150 years, we've seen incredible growth based on an unrenewable energy resource. We're approaching the end of that resource, and things are gonna get hairy. Hell, few periods in history feature such a long period as the one some of us (=amurricans since the civil war) have enjoyed without any major social or economic upheaval.
Peak oil may be 10 years out, but it's coming, and it's gonna be nasty, especially for countries that have built their infrastructure around the automobile. Alternate energies are nice, but the most reasonable of them are expensive compared to oil. Batteries and Fuel Cells are not energy sources.
Oil is what forestalled a Malthusian crisis... for the past few decades we've been seeing the first twinges of such a crisis in the poorer, overpopulated areas of the world. When oil beomes pricey, it's a problem.
-
The key is getting the government out of the energy market, so that the market is able to respond properly to increasing oil prices.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I agree with Nuke33 - anybody who is not concerned about this must not have read the website fully.
I read the website fully and I’m not worried.
The author makes the common mistake of assuming a current trend will continue forever. By that logic, you would conclude that a teenager that grew 3 inches this year will be 12 feet tall by the time he’s 30.
-
I believe that several countries are working on fission that does not produce hazardous waste.
If you have a cheap and limitless supply of electricity then your dependance on oil shrinks to allmost nothing. Say you have unlimited electicity and hydrogen cells at the same time... This guys whole arguement is then laughable.
How far are we from hydrogen cars? some say 5 years... ten tops. free clean electricity? many paths to it.. who knows how long? Nukes will do it now but they are dirty. Dirty is better than collapse tho.
So... you got cheap electricity that is producing hydrogen for cheap. All you would need fossil fuel for is plastics and such... till something else came along that simply took a lot of electrical enegy to make.
his whole disaster scenario discounts any advances.... as do all disaster scenarios.
lazs
-
I agree that he's got a fatalistic outlook. And it's been what, only a few months since this has been discussed here?
Random (no time) comments:
1. Cheap, pumpable oil availability will decline.
2. Sources and distribution of that oil will change - who's got it and who wants it.
3. Developed nations are pretty good at adapting/inventing technology and markets when required to, or market incentives allow it to.
4. Developing nations cannot become developed nations without industrialization and steep oil consumption, thereby increasing polarizing, regional political tensions. That's the big bugaboo, in my opinion.
Something I cobbled together a few months ago related to the topic: Link >> (http://tech-rep.org/energy.htm)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
his whole disaster scenario discounts any advances.... as do all disaster scenarios.
lazs
Advances are based uppon the world's economic reliance on oil, everything requires it in some form to advance.. Our entire economy is based uppon oil, so what if we dont come up with a solution? That is the basis of his entire argument. If there is not enough oil to fuel advancement, it will not happen..
It takes energy to produce energy, and when the price/benefit of advancement merge, a big problem will be on our hands..
Right now there is hardly enough being done to advance in the way we need to in order to alleviate the problem.. Maybe thats what he's trying to get accross instead of we're all F*****...
-
fair enough rolex.
lazs
-
nuke 33 read what I wrote. energy is what we need and a way to use it... we don't really need oil for much.
When you are very young it is tempting to believe the doomsayers... I am still waiting for the ice age time magazine predicted in the 70's that will make most of the U.S. a white wasteland by the year 2000.
I am glad I am not living on a giant garbage heap as was predicted for 20 years ago.
I am still burning gasoline in my car even tho it was predicted all supplies would be exhausted by the year 2000 back in 1970
I am really glad the whole planet didn't go into a nuclear winter as carl figging sagen predicted when the sadman lit kuwaits oil fields on fire.
live through a couple of these sure things and you get a little cynical.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
energy is what we need and a way to use it... we don't really need oil for much.
lazs
Are you kidding me? Take this as just one example.. There are over 250 million cars in america alone.. Those will all become totally worthless eventually.. now you say all we need is energy? Wrong, our energy system is not set up to just use raw energy such as electricity, it needs to be in a form where the economy can use it, and that is STORED energy.. Energy that can be transported, held, and used on demand.. There is no such thing as an economically acceptable electric car, why, because there is no such thing as a battery that will hold a sufficient charge.. Plus the energy required to charge that battery is more than the output it would give.. stupid to try.. hydrogen car, nope.. over a million dollars a pop at this point let alone the platnium constraints mentioned in his article.. There is also no type of machine to produce such things, which require energy as well.. You only see the surface, and just because you think im 'young' or whatever is bogus..
Also have you noticed the prices at the pump lately? they have increased over 100% in the last 4 years alone.. Now tell me why that might be.. and when does it stop?
-
I just got done explaining to you that both GM and Toyota will have hydrogen cars by 2005. hydrogen only depends (in a simplistic way) on electricity to make. Doesn't matter how much electricity if it is virtualy free and clean.
most of the 250 million cars we have aren't worth much... I won't miss em the new ones will be fine. The classics will still live and I will own and drive em so long as I can.
We had millions of horses and buggies too at one time... we don't anymore.
lazs
-
What is free and clean energy you speak of? If you're talking of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc.. Then those at this point are hardly clean.. They take massive ammounts of energy to construct, and the only form of construction we currently have is reliant on fossil fuels.. Seen those big diesel run cranes and earth movers? If there is not enough oil to facilitate their construction there will be no energy period..
Also hydrogen is hardly a good energy source.. It currently takes more energy to exctact hydrogen into its raw 'useable' form than it produces in return.. Why bother?
-
Originally posted by Habu
You can make oil.
You can make it out of plants, it is not very hard to do at all (already there are many people running diesels on vegtable oil). You can make it out of other hydrocarbons such as coal. You can make it in a bioreactor.
Currently, the energy equation for making fuel out of plants requires 2x as much energy (pesticides, tractor fuel, etc) as you get out of it...How is this possible? Subsidies...
Hydrocarbons out of coal? Germany did this in WW2, but also a huge energy input to get some out.
Solar and wind will be our future, methinks
-
Solar and wind will be our future, methinks
Nuclear power will be the future, because unlike wind and solar, it can deliver reliable and cheap electricity.
-
Originally posted by Nuke33
Also hydrogen is hardly a good energy source.. It currently takes more energy to exctact hydrogen into its raw 'useable' form than it produces in return.. Why bother?
This is one of the hottest areas of research in materials science right now. The biggest problem is not producing hydrogen, but making hydrogen storage materials. The 'useable' form of hydrogen can be made with a little electricity from a solar cell or whatever.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I Was Euell Gibbons one fo those survivalist guys?
Didn't he choke to death on a picnic table?
Couldn't have been that sand he was trying to pitch as cereal - never met anyone who actually ate it....
asw
-
Originally posted by XrightyX
Currently, the energy equation for making fuel out of plants requires 2x as much energy (pesticides, tractor fuel, etc) as you get out of it...How is this possible? Subsidies...
Hydrocarbons out of coal? Germany did this in WW2, but also a huge energy input to get some out.
Solar and wind will be our future, methinks
If you make it out of corn maybe. But you can make it out of many other plant stock and with genetic engineering you can get vastly greater yeilds of oil out of a feedstock like soya bean for example if you wanted to.
South Africa had a huge oil from coal program going when I lived there in the late 80's. Look up Sasol. Also there is a technology called Fischer Trope systhesis that can make the production of oil from coal more feasible.
All it takes is the will to do it. Making oil from coal does consume energy but as someone said before it is about storeing energy for use in vehicles. So you can have a nuclear power plant producing electricy that is used to make hydrogen and heat the coal that then allows the coal to be rehydrogenated and form oil.
It is all about the cost of production versus what other forms of the product are currently available. With oil at 60 a barrel it will not be long until you see synthetic oil projects start to look attractive again.
And don't forget the reserves that are in the Alberta oil sands. They are middle eastern in size. They are also not counted in the worlds oil reserves.
-
Oil at 60 is 20 bucks a barrel cheaper in adjusted value than it was in 1981.
-
In case math ain't your strong suit, that is one-third cheaper.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Oil at 60 is 20 bucks a barrel cheaper in adjusted value than it was in 1981.
Sure but in that case the rise in oil prices were political in nature, not a economic constraint as it is going to become..
-
Commodity prices are not driven by physical availability. Stay away from hog bellies, my friend.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Commodity prices are not driven by physical availability. Stay away from hog bellies, my friend.
Ok then as we continue to run out of oil it will stay at 60 bucks a barrel.. whatever man.. brush up on your econ and come back to the discussion
-
Thanks for that link, Rolex. It still is very interesting reading the second time through.
Noted today the development of closer ties between Iraq and Iran:
Iraq signs military pact with Iran (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-07-07T134424Z_01_N07282940_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-DC.XML)
That's a stinger. Not at all unpredictable, however. If the fledgling Iraqi democracy gets any bolder, we'll be forced to reveal that they've been on double secret probation this whole time, and that our troops aren't leaving after all.
-
Nuke33, um, OK.
-
Lizking correct me if im wrong.. As the supply curve decreases and the demand curve increases, the result is an increase in price.. Are you seriously going to tell me that the lack physical availability of oil isnt going to drive the price higher? you gotta be joking
-
No, I am telling you that the amount of oil available, in the present and in the future, has absolutley nothing to do with it's current price.
-
So someone just decided to say.. yeah 60 bucks a barrel sounds like a nice round number... lets use that..
If the availability of oil has nothing to do with its price then its an 'unlimited resource' which clearly isnt the case
-
I would charge a lot of money for economic tutoring, so I will leave it at this: "high school economics will not prepare you for a career in the commodity industry".
No worries, Nuke33, I don't really care if you agree with me or not, But I would hope that you would explore the subject further to prove me wrong, if nothing else.
-
You know Lizking if you said anything to back up your statement, maybe I'd attempt to see your point.. but right now you're just blowing hot air..
And as far as high school economics.. I just spend 4 years at a university and have 2 degrees in business thanks..
Also take a look at this, I dont think it gets much clearer.
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/learning/supply_and_demand.html
-
Fair enough, Nuke, I don't care enough about your opinion to provide the information, so you win.
Congratulations on your education, that is always a good thing.
-
See Rule #4
-
I guess not. You could apply those business degrees to real life and get back to me in, say, 20 years, and we will discuss commodities as they are, not as they should be.
-
See Rule #4
-
He means: Guys with business degrees come cheap and nobody with any business experience trusts folks who rely on their MBAs.
Aristotle, for example, cites the case of two people: one a doctor who knows the rule: "light meat is healthy", but not the particular case: "chicken is light meat", and another a guy with experience who knows the particular: "chicken is healthy" but not the rule. You put them both in a room with a sick guy, which one is gonna be able to help, the doctor or the dude with experience?
Well, isn't the "Adjusted Price" in dollars based in large part on the price of oil to begin with? All that figure means is that the richer countries are richer now than in 81, and control more of the oil.
And what Liz is suggestin' -- and I"m a long-winded idjit -- is that the current price of oil ain't because we've reached "peak oil",,,
Well, Funked has a good point, part of the reason for the various world economies' dependence on oil is that we've been subsidizing it for a damn long time in converting our infrastructure to run on oil.
Folks, particularly in the US, have been fed the idea of inevitable progress for so long they forget that there's no logical necessity that civilization move forward. Take that poster child, the Roman empire: they did great and expanded and stuff, then they exhausted their natural resource (Spanish silver mines) that gave them dominance over their neighbors, and encountered massive environmental change (it got colder) that greatly reduced the number of people they could feed. As a result, the empire just kinda disintegrated.
I still wouldn't be investing in Airbus any time soon.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
And what Liz is suggestin' -- and I"m a long-winded idjit -- is that the current price of oil ain't because we've reached "peak oil",,,
Ok, so he he also saying the laws of supply and demand are non-existant when it comes to the price of oil? If he is, then what about after the peak? I just dont see how the price could be controled any other way, especially 'after' we peak out.
-
I'm not sure, but is Liz saying the price of oil is purely demand-driven, and not based on supply?
-
For about 30 grand or so extra right now... you can get a solar system of power for many luxury houses here that will give you about a $0 power bill... you use some in the winter but sell some back in the summer.
I still see fission as the next step in creating cheap electricity on the whole tho. Cheap electricity drasticly reduces our demand for fossil fuels.
lazs
-
The price of oil is not based simply on supply and demand (unless there suddenly is not enough to go around, then the price will spike due to the supply shortage, but only for a short time).
Oil is priced based on a whole bunch of inputs. What the Saudis are going to produce, what they tell the world they will produce and what they actually end up producing and what they can produce. Political events and world events (you can have an oversupply situation but if some wacko terrorist kills the King of Saudi Arabia or the leader of any other major producer watch what the price will do instantly. Even speechs from political figures like Bush or Greenspan can affect the price.
The economic indicators for the various industrialized nations affect the price. If the US is heading for a recession then the price of oil is not going to go up.
The strength of the US dollar. How long the price has been at its current level (if oil is at 60 dollars for a year or two don't expect it to go up). Expensive oil allows producers to develop less profitable supply and they will invest in exploration, new production facilities, and develop properties that were uneconomic at the old price. Also long term high prices will cause people to buy more fuel efficient cars, industry to switch to other energy sources and governments to fund energy saving measures and programs. The result is demand stops growing and will even decline even in a growing economy.
This only happens if the price stays high for a long enough time.
Finally if oil is too expensive you might get a US recession and then the world demand will plummet. Even markets like China will plummet as their economy is based on exports to the US and if that stops they will be in recession shortly after.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Take that poster child, the Roman empire: they did great and expanded and stuff, then they exhausted their natural resource (Spanish silver mines) that gave them dominance over their neighbors, and encountered massive environmental change (it got colder) that greatly reduced the number of people they could feed. As a result, the empire just kinda disintegrated.
A bit oversimplified, anachronistic and quite wrong. See Gibbon, Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.
However, this thread is about some over caffinated under employed CA lawyer who is spewing a doomsday scenerio that our younger members have swallowed hook line and sinker. Let us recap:
1) Oil right now is a cheap abundant power source, even at $60
2) the price of oil has little to do with supply
3) basing doomsday predictions on faulty assumptions that one must project into an ever changing world is not reliable
4) some day oil will run out
5) nobody knows when #4 will occur
6) anybody who says they know when #4 will occur is lying, a fortiori, anybody who says they know what will happen, is lying. See Mel Gibson, Mad Max; and The Road Warrior.
If you really want to talk about doomsday, discuss the lack of refining capacity in this country.
-
What I have found particularly fascinating, is that solar cells are currently available which can be used as house singles. The multi use of solar cells makes them more cost effective. Currently, depending on electricity use, electric power can be stored during the day and used at night in alternative energy homes and boats. Of course, the ability to store electric energy in a cost effective way using better battery technology is critical for this to happen in general. In the US, air conditioning, appliances, and other modern conveniences would more than consume the power from rooftop solar cells, but there would be a reduction in overall load to the power grid. Most european appliances uses less than half the utilities of the US versions. Cheap energy and water allows making less expensive (but more wasteful) appliances. Also, a proper battery would enable electric cars to be practical. An electric car could also be refueled from home. Combining 'homemade' electricity with a greatly reduced need for oil because of electric cars could make many countries (particularly the US) much more energy (i.e. petroleum oil) independent.
While hydrogen may work as an alternative fuel for vehicles, there is an infrastructure problem and safety issues. Currently, chemical energy stored in petroleum fuel has a very high energy density, is stable, and can be used safely. As long as oil is cheap and electric cars are impractical, who would spend the extra money for solar cell house shingles? Not me.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by Nuke33
What is free and clean energy you speak of? If you're talking of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc.. Then those at this point are hardly clean.. They take massive ammounts of energy to construct, and the only form of construction we currently have is reliant on fossil fuels.. Seen those big diesel run cranes and earth movers? If there is not enough oil to facilitate their construction there will be no energy period..
Also hydrogen is hardly a good energy source.. It currently takes more energy to exctact hydrogen into its raw 'useable' form than it produces in return.. Why bother?
Hydrogen fuels would be portable, and that would justify their energy balance. Nuke, you're sounding a little strident, there. Calm, son, this is not---repeat NOT the end of the world as we know it.
Look at hydrogen FUEL CELL (be sure to be specific) technology. Yes, dependant on platinum. So is the catalytic converter in your car, by the way. Nobody predicts the end of the catalytic converter, do they? The technology is young, and expensive still. 15 years ago, I paid 3 grand for a decent personal computer. Now the equivalent box (and by equivalent I mean the "latest" technology) is less than half that price, not even accounting for inflation. Why? economy of scale in production. As production quantity goes up, unit cost goes down. So that million dollar hand made one off hydrogen fuel cell becomes cheaper. A lot cheaper.
There is very little industrial use for hydrogen gas at this point in time. If production were to go up (as it would if it became a major fuel source) then the unit cost of production would go down, and the current "pilot" processing plants would be replaced by more efficient large scale producers.
And on and on. What about natural gas? We're swimming in the stuff, you know. The bottleneck there is pipeline facilities--more "not in my backyard" thinking.
-
Heh, I said poster child, and I ain't no Gibbon (Christianity? what a load of horsecrap).
However, one major part of the puzzle is the steep drop in agricultural surplus. Another is the disappearance of what was an abundant natural resource.
Yeah, oil is cheap now. And every other source of energy is not cheap. And when oil becomes not cheap, it will have a serious effect on the world. Again, all you have to do is look around and see how much of civilization is predicated on cheap oil. Cheap oil allows urban sprawl. cheap oil facilitates global market capitalism. cheap oil allows less than 2% of the population in the US to grow the food for the entire country and many other parts of the world.
Granted, I'm not going to argue along the lines of our friend the nutcase lawyer, who plays fast and loose with his data to paint the worst picture imaginable, point to post-peak oil prices, then arguing that anything remotely dependent on oil will invariiably shut down.
But energy costs are not simply abstract terms -- they are effects that permeate society: everything gets multiplied by energy costs. Increased energy costs mean that more people on this planet are going to be engaged in producing and distributing less energy.
There's no knowing what will happen. Hell, they may even get fusion to work supercheaply (doubt it though). On the other hand, right now could be remembered for the next 1000 years as "the good ol' days".