Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gh0stFT on December 14, 2005, 06:25:57 PM
-
read this book: The End of Oil: The Decline of the Petroleum Economy and the Rise of a New Energy Order (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747570817/qid=1134605080/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-0680749-3923834)
by Paul Roberts
The world is quickly running out of oil. In the year 2000, global production stood at 76 Million Barrels per Day (MBD). By 2020, demand is forecast to reach 112 MBD, an increase of 47%. But additions to proven reserves have virtually stopped and it is clear that pumping at present rates is unsustainable.
Oil is the sine qua non of “industrial” civilization—the one thing without which such civilization cannot exist. All of the world’s 600 million automobiles depend on oil. So do virtually all other commodities and critical processes: airlines, chemicals, plastics, medicines, agriculture, heating, etc. Almost all of the increase in world food productivity over the past 50 years is attributable to increases in the use of oil-derived additives: pesticides; herbicides; fungicides; fertilizers; and machinery.
When oil is gone, civilization will be stupendously different.
a very good read, even for you "no-global warming" people who care a **** about it.
-
Just my uninformed opinion, but shortage of oil as an energy source doesn't worry me as much as that of the other downstream products, such as plastics or pharmaceuticals.
-
No thanks. I think I'll wait for the movie;)
-
!@#$!@# boosh
-
Is this new book written by the same guys who wrote my grade-school textbooks which explained how the world would be completely out of oil before the year 2000?
Doom and gloom is big business, but their attempts to predict the future seem about as accurate as Miss Cleo.
I'm still waiting for the world as we know it to end from the Y2K meltdown.
We still have an ozone layer? That was supposed to be gone even before the oil ran out!
That killer asteroid hasn't hit us yet, either
We never did have that long-anticipated nuclear war with the Russians
Oh, and what's in vogue this week; is the world warming or are we entering the next ice age? They never seem to make up their minds about that one.
Yellowstone park hasn't blown up
California hasn't been reduced to ruins
Heck, if you throw out enough doom and gloom predictions, sooner or later one of them will come true just through sheer chance. Big deal. We humans are a resourceful species. When and if the oil ever runs out, we'll come up with something else.
J_A_B
-
ok oil might run out 20-30-40 years from now but would there be enough raw materials to make n00k power?
-
Save yourself $10 & just live out the next 20 years instead
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
a very good read, even for you "no-global warming" people who care a **** about it.
Well if it is correct then there is no need for Kyoto anyhow, we are doooooomed !
Is there anything in this book about shale production?
Canada and the US have a bunch of shale rocks waiting to be popped. I am under the impression that as long as oil stays aver 40 bucks a barrel its almost worth the effort.
-
I wonder why no one considers the massive oil reserves under siberia in these doom predictions. Rumor has it they are larger than the saudi deposits.
ANother thought, why are texas oil wells limited in their production per day? Could it be that the US and others are just allowing the arabs to pump themselves dry before tapping our reserves?
-
THE SPICE MUST FLOW!!!!!!!
ARGHHHHHH!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
ANother thought, why are texas oil wells limited in their production per day? Could it be that the US and others are just allowing the arabs to pump themselves dry before tapping our reserves?
Give the man a cigar.
Makes perfect sence to me.
Run everyone else dry before you use up your own.
Use up all your own first then you really are at the mercey of others
-
USA has five times the oil reserves of oil as does Saudi Arabia in the form of Oil Shale.
USA has about 1600 billion tons of coal. If the US were to produce, from coal alone, the amount of oil equivalent to what the US imports, the US would consume an additional 0.912 billion tons annually. Total coal usage would be less than 2 billion tons, and that would allow us another 800 years at present energy consumption.
Canada has more oil than Saudi Arabia in the form of oil sands.
It looks like North America just needs to change liquid energy production infrastructure in order to keep running.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Well if it is correct then there is no need for Kyoto anyhow, we are doooooomed !
Is there anything in this book about shale production?
Canada and the US have a bunch of shale rocks waiting to be popped. I am under the impression that as long as oil stays aver 40 bucks a barrel its almost worth the effort.
Yes you're right about the need for treaties. If anything, this will solve the global warming.
About shale rocks I dunno. I'd rather trust in biofuel(which I don't).
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
"What About the Oil Sands in Canada and the Oil Shale in the American West?"
The good news is that we have a massive amount of untapped "non conventional" oil located in the oil sands up in Canada. The bad news is that, unlike conventional sources of oil, oil derived from these oil sands is extremely financially and energetically intensive to extract. Whereas conventional oil has enjoyed a rate of "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI) of about 30 to 1, the oil sands rate of return hovers around 1.5 to 1.
This means that we would have to expend 20 times as much energy to generate the same amount of oil from the oil sands as we do from conventional sources of oil.
Where to find such a huge amount of capital is largely a moot point because, even with massive improvements in extraction technology, the oil sands in Canada are projected to only produce a paltry 2.2 million barrels per day by 2015. This doesn't even account for any unexpected production decreases or cost overuns, both of which have been endemic to many of the oil sands projects.
More optimistic reports anticipate 4 million barrels per day of oil coming from the oil sands by 2020. Even if the optimists are correct, 4 million barrels per day much oil when you consider our colossal and ever-growing demand in conjunction with the small amount of time we have left before the global peak:
1.We currently need 83.5 million barrels per day.
2.We are projected to need 120 million barrels per day by 2020.
3.We will be losing over 1 million barrels per day of production per year, every year, once we hit the backside of the global oil production curve.
4.The general consensus among now disinterested scientists is that oil production will peak by 2010 at the latest.
The huge reserves of oil shale in the American west suffer from similar problems. While Shell Oil has an experimental oil shale program, even Steve Mut - the CEO of their Unconventional Resources Unit - has sounded less than optimistic when questioned about the ability of oil shale to soften the coming crash. According to journalist Stuart Staniford's coverage of a recent conference on Peak Oil:
In response to questions, Steve guesstimated that oil shale production would still be pretty negligible by 2015, but might, if things go really well, get to 5mbpd by 2030.
Disinterested observers are even less optimistic about oil shale. Geologist Dr. Walter Youngquist points out:
The average citizen . . . is led to believe that the United States really has no oil supply problem when oil shales hold "recoverable oil" equal to "more than 64 percent of the world's total proven crude oil reserves." Presumably the United States could tap into this great oil reserve at any time. This is not true at all. All attempts to get this "oil" out of shale have failed economically.Furthermore, the "oil" (and, it is not oil as is crude oil, but this is not stated) may be recoverable but the net energy recovered may not equal the energy used to recover it. If oil is "recovered" but at a net energy loss, the operation is a failure.
This means any attempt to replace conventional oil with oil shale will actually make our situation worse as the project will consume more energy than it will produce, regardless of how high the price goes. Further problems with oil shale have been documented by economist Professor James Hamilton who writes:
A recent Rand study concluded it will be at least 12 years before oil shale reaches the production growth phase. And that is a technological assessment, not a reference to the environmental review process. If it takes 15 years to get an oil refinery built and approved, despite well known technology and well understood environmental issues, viewing oil shale as something that could make major contributions to world energy supplies in the immediate future seems highly unrealistic.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
ok oil might run out 20-30-40 years from now but would there be enough raw materials to make n00k power?
If you mean nucular power then yes, that's exactly what should be done at this point. It is being done around the world, but not in the scale it should be.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Doom and gloom is big business, but their attempts to predict the future seem about as accurate as Miss Cleo.
J_A_B
Uh Oh! You trying to tell me that Miss Cleo has been found innacurate? Should I cancel the order for the new yacht then. And here I have been checking the mail everyday for a week awaiting the arrival of the big check. :)
-
Ghost - I'll read it, and if any of the people here can point me at a book which says the oil won't run out and proves that global warming is a myth, I'll read that too. By that time, Rotax will be along with a few rolls of plastic sheeting on the back of his SUV!
Hey jackal, I'm surprised you don't have an opinion about this book. I was relying on you. In the past, you've been so reliable in coming up with opinions on books you haven't read, countries you haven't visited etc...:aok
-
if any of the people here can point me at a book which says the oil won't run out and proves that global warming is a myth, I'll read that too (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521010683)
-
I think I will go with funked's scientists... you guys can wring your hands and wail tho if you like.
Even if the doom and gloom "looking for a government study grant" grant guys are half right....
Let's just stop the torture and use the damn stuff up.. It is a proven fact that we are crisis driven as a people (well.... cept the socialists who are lost without government) and....
once we get to the point where there is a real crisis... something will be done or.... billions will starve or die of disease or war and the problem will solve itself..
really... nothing to worry about.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
read this book: The End of Oil: The Decline of the Petroleum Economy and the Rise of a New Energy Order (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747570817/qid=1134605080/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-0680749-3923834)
by Paul Roberts
The world is quickly running out of oil. In the year 2000, global production stood at 76 Million Barrels per Day (MBD). By 2020, demand is forecast to reach 112 MBD, an increase of 47%. But additions to proven reserves have virtually stopped and it is clear that pumping at present rates is unsustainable.
Oil is the sine qua non of “industrial” civilization—the one thing without which such civilization cannot exist. All of the world’s 600 million automobiles depend on oil. So do virtually all other commodities and critical processes: airlines, chemicals, plastics, medicines, agriculture, heating, etc. Almost all of the increase in world food productivity over the past 50 years is attributable to increases in the use of oil-derived additives: pesticides; herbicides; fungicides; fertilizers; and machinery.
When oil is gone, civilization will be stupendously different.
a very good read, even for you "no-global warming" people who care a **** about it.
How about I DON'T read the book, and "maybe" experience this IN PERSON? I know I drive a gas-guzzling Ford Explorer with cleaner exhaust than the 20 Semi's spewing a cloud so big, it hides the rig and trailer. But hey, noone's perfect. Maybe I could remove my catalytic converter............
The version I'd like to see is the US using it's Reserve and flipping off the rest of the world.
Karaya
-
USA has about 1600 billion tons of coal.
Proved reserves at the end of 2004 stood at about 250 billion tons.
If the US were to produce, from coal alone, the amount of oil equivalent to what the US imports, the US would consume an additional 0.912 billion tons annually. Total coal usage would be less than 2 billion tons, and that would allow us another 800 years at present energy consumption.
The known reserves will last 245 years at current consumption, the US consumes roughly twice as much energy from oil as it does from coal. In other words, you need to treble the amount of coal used to make up for oil. In addition, the US currently gets as much energy from natural gas as from coal, so to replace oil and gas with coal requires four times current coal production, meaning current reserves will last about 60 years.
-
Thanks, Funked - I'll order it today. I'm just putting in an order for the other book. Several available on Amazon at around £4.50. BTW Funked - have you read it yourself??
Originally posted by lazs2
I think I will go with funked's scientists... you guys can wring your hands and wail tho if you like.
Rrrrrrrriiiiiggggghhhhht.... So your mind is already made up, without having read either book. That's the Lazs we know and love! :cool:
-
Originally posted by mora
If you mean nucular power then yes, that's exactly what should be done at this point. It is being done around the world, but not in the scale it should be.
I hear what you are saying, and I agree with you in the short term, still, reactors worry me. I am no expert on Chaos Theory, but after watching Jurassic Park:-), I understand that if you build a simple reactor, it will fail in a simple way, and if you build a complex reactor, it will also fail in a simple way. Take it to extremes as in the space shuttle, with triple redundancy everywhere, and you have a meltdown every ten years.
Then there is the problem with the reactor core, spent fuel rods, boron/graphite control rods, the list goes on and on. The only long term solution I can think of, is to build Cheops like pyramids around the planet, and seal the thing up for three thousand plus years. Again, I am not raining on the nuclear parade, but we must be realist about this.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
THE SPICE MUST FLOW!!!!!!!
ARGHHHHHH!!!!!!!
We need but one thing... the Kwisatz Haderach.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
We need but one thing... the Kwisatz Haderach.
What about the Shai-Hulud!? Last I heard, a couple were spotted digging around the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
Then there is the problem with the reactor core, spent fuel rods, boron/graphite control rods, the list goes on and on. The only long term solution I can think of, is to build Cheops like pyramids around the planet, and seal the thing up for three thousand plus years. Again, I am not raining on the nuclear parade, but we must be realist about this.
As a physicist you must know that the amounts of waste are actually pretty small. I explained in another thread how we are handling it, and I do trust the experts on this one. As what comes to safety, someone compared the dangers of global warming to the danger of being hit by a meteor. I think the comparison is more valid in the case of reactor safety.
Here's the picture and link again, even more safe than a pyramid. This facility is sufficient for the used fuel from 5 reactors for 50 years or so.
(http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/images/e_kapslait.gif)
http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/
-
Originally posted by mora
As a physicist you must know that the amounts of waste are actually pretty small. I explained in another thread how we are handling it, and I do trust the experts on this one. As what comes to safety, someone compared the dangers of global warming to the danger of being hit by a meteor. I think the comparison is more valid in the case of reactor safety.
Here's the picture and link again, even more safe than a pyramid. This facility is sufficient for the used fuel from 5 reactors for 50 years or so.
(http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/images/e_kapslait.gif)
http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/
I am not a physicist, though I did receive my BS in physics many years ago. It looks like your scientists have really thought this one through. For years, waste storage was a political hot potato in this country. Waste sat around in corroded, leaking, above ground drums. The politicians sat around like the proverbial three monkeys. We now store our wast deep in New Mexico salt mines.
We have a de-activated reactor in Michigan, and the surrounding area is mildly hot. There is a fence, lights, a couple of guards playing pinochle, and it will have to stay that way for thousands of years. Talk about job security.
-
You guys can read all the books you like or believe all the doom-n-gloomers you like but the Enviro-movement has had only one real goal. The undermining of the western capitalist economy. I have seen far to may instances here in Florida of common sense solutions to environmental problems be rejected out of hand by the Enviro-Nazis because they did not adequately punish the business interest they were trying to target.
One only need to look at the Sugar Cane industries solution to nitrate run-off into the Everglades. It is a working solution but the Greens tried everything they could to shut it down and impose punitive damages on the Sugar Cane producers. These 'so-called' compassionate and caring people didn't give a snot about all those people who's jobs would have been lost if they got their way.
For the Kyoto count up see: http://www.junkscience.com
Preconceptual Science:
(http://www.junkscience.com/images/nq050606.gif)
The Proof:
(http://www.junkscience.com/images/nq050608.gif)
More:
(http://www.junkscience.com/images/nq050610.gif)
-
Done - Both books ordered. :cool:
LOL Clifra Jones, that first cartoon, second from from left reminds me of various people on the board, and even in this thread!
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Proved reserves at the end of 2004 stood at about 250 billion tons.
The known reserves will last 245 years at current consumption, the US consumes roughly twice as much energy from oil as it does from coal. In other words, you need to treble the amount of coal used to make up for oil. In addition, the US currently gets as much energy from natural gas as from coal, so to replace oil and gas with coal requires four times current coal production, meaning current reserves will last about 60 years.
What I said was if we made up imported oil with coal... not replace the domestic production as well, let alone replace natural gas too.
Demonstrated Reserves of Economically available coal in Appalachcia are 103.5 billion tons. The State on Montana alone adds 120 billion tons.
US Geological Survey estimates the total identified coal resources as being 1,600 billion tons. Another 1,600 billion tons of unidentified resources are postulated.
Argue with them.
-
Only 10% of the oil in every well that has ever been drilled has ever been recovered. The oil is still down there its just that it has been too expensive to recover or the techniques to recover it do not exist at this time.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
the Enviro-movement has had only one real goal. The undermining of the western capitalist economy. I have seen far to may instances here in Florida of common sense solutions to environmental problems be rejected out of hand by the Enviro-Nazis because they did not adequately punish the business interest they were trying to target.
Your logic is just the same as of those who make Bush = Hitler comparisons.
-
Originally posted by icemaw
Only 10% of the oil in every well that has ever been drilled has ever been recovered. The oil is still down there its just that it has been too expensive to recover or the techniques to recover it do not exist at this time.
Yes, but it will not be cheap to recover. You will need to put in many times the energy to recover it than you currently do. You might not be able to do it at net gain at all. Everything in the recovery chain is manufactured and running on oil, which will be astronomically expensive at that point, and so will be the recovered oil.
-
so beet... are you saying that I should read all the books on the subject even tho they both have scientists that are in complete dissagreement with each other? And... why is that?
Is it perhaps that there isn't enough solid data at this point to draw a realistic conclussion for what will happen decades in the future when technolodgy is involved...
I know that photovoteic has far outstripped expectations of 20 years ago so far as cost.... it is possible and is being done every day here, to have a home that will produce not only all the electricity it needs but sell back to the grid... in fact... energy companies are fighting having to buy it back.
I think I will wait till all the crackpots get done screaming and shouting before I join one cult or the other.
lazs
-
Originally posted by mora
Yes, but it will not be cheap to recover. You will need to put in many times the energy to recover it than you currently do. You might not be able to do it at net gain at all. Everything in the recovery chain is manufactured and running on oil, which will be astronomically expensive at that point, and so will be the recovered oil.
Nuclear power plants sitting in the middle of oil fields, providing the power necessary to extract the oil. If we want to extract every last drop, there is no other choice.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
once we get to the point where there is a real crisis... something will be done or.... billions will starve or die of disease or war and the problem will solve itself..
really... nothing to worry about.
lazs
Bingo....and now we just solved Beet's problem of greenhouse gases. Since everybody on the planet produces CO2 and water vapour simply from breathing. With millions dead the production of greenhouse gasses drops immensely world wide.
-
the japanese are building a factory to recycle spent nuke fuel rods, so much for that argument.
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
Nuclear power plants sitting in the middle of oil fields, providing the power necessary to extract the oil. If we want to extract every last drop, there is no other choice.
Yes, but the nuclear power plants have to be build first. The production of the materials and the construction of the plant is all running on oil. Also uranium isn't going to last forever either, unless the next generation efficiency reactors will see the light of the day. I'm not saying that it can't be done, just guessing that it'll be helluva expensive. If someone thinks that he can buy gas at $1.80/gal after the conventional oil production starts to decline is horribly wrong. The biggest worry isn't the pump price though, it's the price of everyday commodities.
-
What I said was if we made up imported oil with coal... not replace the domestic production as well, let alone replace natural gas too.
Fair enough, but US oil production is only about 35% of US oil consumption, and production is falling year on year.
Demonstrated Reserves of Economically available coal in Appalachcia are 103.5 billion tons. The State on Montana alone adds 120 billion tons.
US Geological Survey estimates the total identified coal resources as being 1,600 billion tons. Another 1,600 billion tons of unidentified resources are postulated.
Argue with them.
I would, but after searching their figures seem much closer to what I said:
A demonstrated reserve base estimated at nearly 475 billion short tons suggests that the United States has enough coal to meet projected energy needs for almost 200 years, based on current consumption rates.
http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/coalavailability/coal.html
There's a difference in the size of reserves, because the BP energy review (where I got my figures) gives energy in tons of oil equivalent, but there's fairly good agreement about the time the reserves will last.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so beet... are you saying that I should read all the books on the subject even tho they both have scientists that are in complete dissagreement with each other? And... why is that?
I'm saying.... that I'm going to read both books. You should too!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Hey jackal, I'm surprised you don't have an opinion about this book. I was relying on you. In the past, you've been so reliable in coming up with opinions on books you haven't read, countries you haven't visited etc...:aok
And what opinion on what book that I haven`t read are you interested in Beetle. I`ll see fi I can help ya out. :}
I don`t usualy read anything that I`m not interested in reading. If it bores me, why do you think I would read it? I don`t read satanic ritual books for instance because I would be bored to tears and am certainly not interested in stuff like that. I don`t usaly visit countries that I allready know enough about to know I would be bored to tears if I went there. Your country would be a great example of that. I`m sorta strange like that. I don`t go somewhere or do something just to boost my ego at the next tea session and have something to spout off about.
Now take you for instance...you have been to Texas and it is evident by your posts that you would have been better off staying at home because you have certainly proved time and again that you know less than nothing about the state. You certainly know enough about the U.S. though. You prove that with your numerous, boring envy posts.
-
That's OK, Jackal. You just make sure all's well in your tabacca chewing, grit eating utopia tonight, and make sure the stove's off before you go to bed.
-
nobody forces you to read any books, i just put it here for those
who like to enlarge theyr horizont, to get a different point of view.
But if you feel you allready have the right source and know it all and
so dont need anything different, its ok.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
That's OK, Jackal. You just make sure all's well in your tabacca chewing, grit eating utopia tonight, and make sure the stove's off before you go to bed.
LOL Here we usualy run heat the night through Beet. It`s just some more evil American ways to piss you off. :)
You make sure you extend that pinky at tea time.
-
So, like, is anyone going to tell me how the book ends ... people always do that with movies.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
But if you feel you allready have the right source and know it all and
so dont need anything different, its ok.
Ghost, that describes a considerable number of people on this board! What I find funny is that when 3-4 of these tards disagree with my opinions, which have been formed by reading newspaper articles reporting the findings of leading world scientists, and books like the one you have suggested, one of the tards for whom 4 paragraphs amounts to a "wall of text" and who therefore doesn't read much will assert that I have been "forced into a corner"! :lol
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
So, like, is anyone going to tell me how the book ends ... people always do that with movies.
Why? Do you want to make sure it ends how you want it to end before you commit to making a purchase? Come on, Rotax, you're more intelligent than to be considering a book purchase only if the book tells you what you want to hear, and reinforces your existing beliefs. I would expect that from guys like Masher and Jack-all, but not you.
Take the plunge! Order BOTH books, as I have. I'm going to read both sides of the story, and so should you.
-
:) They did a 3 part series here in the U.S. of A. on this theory and had the author on . It was either Discovery or A&E. Can`t remember. Watched parts of it. retty boring , especialy the parts after they brought authorities on the subject to the show and started shooting down the whole basis of the theory. Was just about as many theories and ideas on the subject one way as there were the other. Pretty Ho Himmish stuff.
Always some doomsdayers and teeth gnashers. Always have been , always will be. Either way there is not a whole lot that you can do about it as an individual on a large scale basis..
Everyday , seems like, there is someone coming up with ideas to take care of problems before they arise. An example would be the trend in autos to develop more horsepower from less fuel, etc.
Beet, you appear to be on the verge of a tantrum or holding your breath till you turn blue. :)
-
ghost...no... I simply feel that all of the data is so conflicting that reading up on the subject is simple mental masterbation for masochists or manic depressives at this point.
I think it is laughable to predict our fuel reseves at this point when they are somewhere between 20-1000 years in the future.... I think that predcicting what techknowodgy will be able to do 20 years in the future is like someone in 1890 saying that powered flight would be impossible and impractical for at least 100 years or...
Someone in 1960 saying that the ice age is a certainty by the year 1990... or... someone in 1940 saying that milk is bad for you or someone in 1950 saying it is good for you or someone in 1960 saying it is bad or someone in 1970 saying it is good or someone in 1980 saying it is bad or...
and how bout that butter?
As explained... a house now can be self sufficient in electricity for about 40k additional initial cost.... the japs are reusing fuel rods.... all sorts of inovative new ideas in the energy field are going on as we speak...
The books of doom and gloom convieniently ignore all of this of course.
and... the same people moaning the most here get on huge airliners that spew millions of pounds of filth and greenhouse gasses every year.. and they do it..... to take a vacation!
laughable.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and... the same people moaning the most here get on huge airliners that spew millions of pounds of filth and greenhouse gasses every year.. and they do it..... to take a vacation!
Actually a car emits twice as much CO2 per passenger per mile than a huge airliner. Of course there's lots do be done in airplanes aswell. A good way to start would be to switch back to turboprops in commuter traffic. Also it doesn't matter what the purpose of the travel is as long as it happens.
Anyway this topic isn't about CO2 emissions, it's about peak oil.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Ghost, that describes a considerable number of people on this board! What I find funny is that when 3-4 of these tards disagree with my opinions, which have been formed by reading newspaper articles reporting the findings of leading world scientists, and books like the one you have suggested, one of the tards for whom 4 paragraphs amounts to a "wall of text" and who therefore doesn't read much will assert that I have been "forced into a corner"! :lol
Beetle, you really are a card. Do your friends call you "Ace"? They really should you know.
I will tell you what the fundamental difference is between Europe and America. Anyone who reads this board can see it. You Euros look up and say the sky is falling. We Americans look up and say the sky is no longer the limit.
Physics got us into this problem, when tens of thousands of years ago, a physicist named Jo-Jo discovered how to control fire. She was, no doubt, one of your ancestors. How sad it is to see how far her descendants have declined in their pursuit of knowledge.
You want clean power, and lot's of it, I'll give you a possible solution. The worlds major players are constructing a proof of concept fusion reactor in France. They are funding it to the tune of $16 billion, spread out over twenty years. Apparently our governments think we have twenty years. I *know* you sure don't. Why aren't you Greens lobbying those government to increase funding and decrease the time!? Too much of a bother? Too comfy sitting at home reading you anti-American books? What a hypocrite...
-
If the crap ever hits the fan.. energy can be produced thru nuclear , geothermal, and solar to create current to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. (5th grade science)
this doesn't even disrupt the supply chain and ease of use of portable energy (gasoline , hydrogen cells etc..)
this technology when combined with the oil shale / sands /gas reserves in north america would save the day.. (at least my life time)
the only thing holding this back is the oil companies themselves. energy shortages are highly profitable, California / enron and the current gouging for the hurricanes should be a wake up call as proof of concept..
congress says wtf. youll bankrupt america thru inflation.. and now look at the prices, biggest drop in the history of petrol history..
Like magic the cost of energy receeds..
DoctorYo
PS the Russian reserves are the largest in the world but the cost to tap it is not as profitable as playing the whole world for shortages. Most businessmen don't leave money on the table. Hence all these you need a Humvee to make up for your small _____ !!! ---------- > feet commercials..
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
Why aren't you Greens lobbying those government to increase funding and decrease the time!?
When have the greens done anything sensible!? You seem to believe that all who believe there might be a oil production peak in the near future are "greens". I'm as far away from a green as you can be, I actually loathe them. I just tend to believe the economists, scientists and engineers on this one.
-
Originally posted by mora
When have the greens done anything sensible!? You seem to believe that all who believe there might be a oil production peak in the near future are "greens". I'm as far away from a green as you can be, I actually loathe them. I just tend to believe the economists, scientists and engineers on this one.
You misunderstand me on this one. I know energy production is going to peak. As DocYo pointed out, this can be easily derived by 5th grade science. What we don't know is when it will peak. That knowledge is critical if we are going to make an intelligent, verses emotional, decision on what to do about it.
-
BTW, what does this book recommend we do about it ... anyone?
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
BTW, what does this book recommend we do about it ... anyone?
Well read it and find out, you dolt! My copy was waiting for me when I got home this afternoon. :) BTW rotax, the only card in here is Jack-all. When have the greens done anything sensible!? You seem to believe that all who believe there might be a oil production peak in the near future are "greens". I'm as far away from a green as you can be, I actually loathe them. I just tend to believe the economists, scientists and engineers on this one. - mora
I agree entirely, and I don't like the Greens. But many Americans on this board don't see anything green - they see everything in monochrome. Black, or White. If you're not one thing, you must be the complete opposite (of that thing). If you're not at one end of the spectrum, you are therefore at the opposite end of the spectrum. No shades of grey in between.
-
everything is either black or white in the long run... there is no shades of gray.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I agree entirely, and I don't like the Greens. But many Americans on this board don't see anything green - they see everything in monochrome. Black, or White. If you're not one thing, you must be the complete opposite (of that thing). If you're not at one end of the spectrum, you are therefore at the opposite end of the spectrum. No shades of grey in between.
Okay, maybe we have been hip shooting past each other, because each thought the other was an extremist. I am not in favor of burning off the worlds remaining fossil fuels, over a weekend vacation in Las Vegas. You are not in favor of starving children, to save penguins. I am looking forward to discussing common sense solutions.
-
but.... beet is in favor of burning up the worlds remaining fossil fuels in jets and boats and other things that allow him to go on vacation...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but.... beet is in favor of burning up the worlds remaining fossil fuels in jets and boats and other things that allow him to go on vacation...
lazs
But.........but.............b ut...........He is reading a book about it. that will make it all better. :)
-
vacation good... burning tires and hot rodding around bad? Everyone here has hobbies that are probly not the best for the environment..
real men don't try to nanny other men into forsakeing their hobbies to make themselves feel better about what they do.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
But.........but.............but...........He is reading a book about it. that will make it all better. :)
Yes! I've just got the chapter which tells you that the answer to everything is to build an orphanage! :rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes! I've just got the chapter which tells you that the answer to everything is to build an orphanage! :rofl
Good. Then you are making progress. :)
I see by your many references to that that you find it quite annoying and amusing that someone would actualy DO something for a cuase they beleive in. That`s good stuff. keep it coming.
Wonder how much old meany greenhouse gas was expelled in the publishing of that book. Also just think of the oil products that were used in transporting that book all over the planet. The pure friggen horror. I`ve figured it all out. It seems to me that the worst problems that exists in both non-essential usage of oil products and the expelling of greenhouse gases are being done trying to produce and transport books to those who wish to gain statistics for use in "Evil U.S. Empire" threads on the AH BBS. :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Wonder how much old meany greenhouse gas was expelled in the publishing of that book. Also just think of the oil products that were used in transporting that book all over the planet.
Good point, but the book was printed in Britain. St. Ives in fact, about 250 miles from here. I doubt that my copy was transported here by 4.6mpg Ford Excursion. :rofl
-
Ford does not make a model called "Excursion"
They haven't for a couple of years.
They have come out with "Escape" Hybrid SUV that gets about 30 mpg.
Does England still produce the Bentley Continental which is rated at 12 mpg? Or the Aston Martin DB9 manual coupe which gets only 11?
Think globally act locally. How have you acted today?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Ford does not make a model called "Excursion"
They haven't for a couple of years.
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/excursion/
HMcG - don't know about the Bentley or Aston, but in any case they are so expensive that only a relative handful are produced.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Good point, but the book was printed in Britain.
Does not matter where it was printed. The frivolous use of oil products to produce and ship this thing around the planet is just a total horror. That`s not even taking into consideration the greenhouses gases that were expelled during production and shipping, etc.
Disclaimer: For the serious minded.......This ain`t. :)
-
Because of my recent propensity for jumping from job to job, I have found it difficult to escape the confines of modern life and pursue the call of the wild.
Having accumulated enough personal leave days at my newest occupation of reconstructing the psychological foibles of some of Arkansas' finest young gangstas, I intended to satisfy my craving for a personal rapport with mother nature.
So...on a Friday night in November...the night prior to our efforts to assist the state government in taking a census of local odocoileus virginianus populations...my compatriots and I...that is, my Uncle Ken and his sons and assorted friends...sat around a campfire and retold the tales from times past.
The night was cool, but not too cool, the air crystal clear with stars blazing like diamonds. Stories and lies seemed to be drawn forth by the fire and the congenial atmosphere. Even politics became a topic of discussion, but wasn't delved in too deeply, for all felt that it might ruin the camaraderie.
Presently, one of the newer members of the camp, sipping on his coffee and gazing at the flames in rapture, opined that our campfire wasn't politically correct. Quothe he, "The emissions might be in violation of the spirit of the Kyoto agreement."
This elicited a fair amount of discussion from those assembled worthies. Some held that, since we only assembled a few times a year, and thus only built such a fire less than a dozen times in that period, the impact upon the environment was negligible. Others felt that, given the impact of the world's population on our environment, even a little pollution on our part might not, in the long run, be acceptable. Not that they actually advocated putting out the fire, mind, but mentioned it as an option that needed to be considered.
Finally, Uncle Ken proposed that we put it to a vote. Should we or shouldn't we douse the fire.
This motion met with general approval, and the vote was held.
The outcome was that the proposal that the fire be put out was nixed.
As for it's impact on the environment, the consensus was that, "Frankly, we don't give a dam_!"
-
It's only bad when other people are doing it... that is the "spirit" of the treaty and in fact....
government in general.
lazs
-
case in point... when beet was over here... he flew here in a huge jet for no real purpose except his own entertainment... he rented a big oldsmobile and drove around sightseeing and when he came to my house we took a bunch of handguns out and shot em.
laws are for the peasants.
lazs
-
I'm confused... so after reading all them seven pages, I'll say I still blame it on culchies like Lazs. That's a safe bet... always has been.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/excursion/
HMcG - don't know about the Bentley or Aston, but in any case they are so expensive that only a relative handful are produced.
I followed the link, but it doesn't change the fact that the Excursion production has ceased.
Therefore there are more Bentley and Astons now made than Excursions.
But I guess it's okay for rich people to ruin the planet.
Any thoughts on how to change the warming trend on other objects in the solar system?
-
Anyone ever try to make a profit by publishing a newspaper, book, or cable news network, that reports only good news? Enough said about that.
Energy, energy, where for art thou? The sun is producing 3.8*10^23 kilojoules per sec. Each and every second, it produces enough energy to power the US for 9,000 years, at present consumption.
Several terawatts of electricity are produced by earth bound power plants every year. We need to increase this to the 20-30 terawatt range by 2050.
175 terawatts of energy are striking the earths upper atmosphere every day. The physics of photovoltaic cells are well understood. The physics of electromagnetic energy transmission are well understood. The physics of space launch are well understood. The physics of orbital mechanics are well understood.
All that is required to assemble the pieces, is simple addition.
-
Splitting H2O takes something like 5 times the energy you get out from the hydrogen, thus hydrogen is just a way to store energy, it is not energy source like oil for example. Its simply very inefficent battery.
Not to mention it has to be kept under -180C for it to be liquid, which is the only reasonable way for automobile consumption. Never going to happen thats for sure. Its more likely that processed biomasses will be used instead. But they will be super expensive, SUV:s will be just quirks in history books after that.
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
Splitting H2O takes something like 5 times the energy you get out from the hydrogen, thus hydrogen is just a way to store energy, it is not energy source like oil for example. Its simply very inefficent battery.
Not to mention it has to be kept under -180C for it to be liquid, which is the only reasonable way for automobile consumption. Never going to happen thats for sure. Its more likely that processed biomasses will be used instead. But they will be super expensive, SUV:s will be just quirks in history books after that.
Good points, but there are solutions. Let’s take biomass. The Department of Agriculture claims that only 11% of the earths surface is suitable for growing crops. With a world population of some 10 billion in 2050, we simply can’t afford to grow food to feed our cars.
Hydrogen is inexhaustible. The sun will burn for another 4 billion years, so FAPP solar radiation is inexhaustible. If we use space based solar collectors to provide our energy, then use some of that energy to extract H from H2O, we have bought ourselves 4 billion years of civilization. If we stay fossil fuel or biomass dependant, I doubt we will last another 200 years.
Right now, we can store H, as a gas, in 5,000 and 10,000 psi containers. Ford is using the 5,000 psi tank in a twelve passenger shuttle bus. The bus uses a hydrogen internal combustion engine, and gets about 7.5 MPG. This is fine for city driving, and remember, the exhaust gas is H2O, not CO2.
We have all the technological pieces in place, to move from an earth based fossil fuel civilization, to a spaced based solar radiation civilization. The only question is whether we have the wisdom, and the will, to do it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
laws are for the peasants.
- and taxes are for little people! ;) I think it was Henry Ford II who said that
Rotax! My man! -very good post, and it just coincides with my having read chapter 3 in that book which discusses hydrogen fuel cells at considerable length. There's hope for it, but it seems that before development will go ahead in earnest, the world has to be brought to the brink of oil depletion before anyone will sit up and pay attention.
-
beet said.... "the world has to be brought to the brink of oil depletion before anyone will sit up and pay attention."
exactly my point!
I am doing my part by driving hot rods and such... Americans are doing their part by not signing stupid treaties and by driving huge SUV's.... at considerable sacrafice to ourselves!
meanwhile.... well meaning but wrong, conservationists and socialists from across the pond are prolonging the problem with expensive gas and stupid high milage cars...
My motto is.... if you ain't driving a big block.... you are part of the problem.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet said.... "the world has to be brought to the brink of oil depletion before anyone will sit up and pay attention."
exactly my point!
LOL Lazs! OK, so I can see where you're coming from. :aok But that hydrogen fuel cell technology isn't ready yet.
This concept of taking people to the brink reminds me of my working years in IT. If you were to foresee a potential calamity, and fix the problem before it had a chance to occur, you'd get no recognition - you had simply done your job.
But if you let the department fall into a hole such that they had to call you on the pager (as it was then) at 3am to come in to fix something (even if it should never have happened) you'd get hailed as a hero.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
- and taxes are for little people! ;) I think it was Henry Ford II who said that
Leona Helmsley...
-
the point beet being... the problem allways get solved. You and I don't know if we are "ready" for something new... you could read the paper next week and find that a breakthrough in cold fussion or some such was made..
but on a more practical level... right now.. you can buy a house that with $40k solar panel system will net you a $0 output for power.. If the electic companies just shut down nex4t week or browned out every day...
Private industry would rush to make those things as cheap as they could... every contractor in the U.S. would offer "solar packes/upgrades" at competeing prices and with rebates etc... the price would halve in a year or better... Hell... probly be made in china systems at Wall mart.
Or.... we can make ourselves misserable and wring our hands for a decade or so...
lazs
-
Too early to say, Lazs. I'm about one third of the way through the book. I've browsed the chapter headings - plenty of doom and gloom to come!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the point beet being... the problem allways get solved. You and I don't know if we are "ready" for something new... you could read the paper next week and find that a breakthrough in cold fussion or some such was made..
Phew! Just finished reading it today, all 341 pages. It was heavy going.
I never realised the complexity of the "geopolitics" of the world's energy order. It doesn't look as if the ultimate renewable source of energy will have much of an impact by 2030. The book strongly suggests there will be an intermediate energy technology driven by natural gas, which will last about 20 years and will provide a bridge, while a longer term solution is developed. But I very much doubt that a solution will pop up "next week". And... oil consumption is set to increase as China and India develop their economies.
One of the problems the author cites is that many figures in the US government are hand picked oilmen, and that W has tried to solve the energy crisis with calls for higher production, instead of making more efficient use of what we already have, and looking to the future of new fuels. The oil industry is being run like any other business - the more the oil companies sell, the higher are there profits. So it's no wonder that W is less than enthusiastic about a future without oil. I don't think the author likes W much.
-
20 years is next week in the grand schem of things.
So the author has better sources than the U.S. government and knows that the government is getting bad info from oilmen who don't really know about U.S. oil like he does?
lazs
-
Just noticed this thread. You read 341 pages beet1e to get that? I thought I told you that about a year ago... and I used letters and words recycled from other words and even recycled pixels. :)
-
Actually I don't have to read this book. I read several books in the mid and late 70's by some of the best scientific minds of the day that stated we would be completely out of oil by 1994. So since there has been no oil drilled for over 12 years, why bother.
-
I've mentioned in posts that I have a new Hemi Ram. On the center headliner computer, it has a feature built in to calculate mpg. They advertise 14city/18highway, but since I have a lead foot at stoplights, I'm currently getting 10.6mpg.
But it's huge and when the nuclear war/meteor/super volcano/alien invasion/insert cliche here happens it will hold a large spear gun in the bed and have a cowcatcher on the front with spikes and stuff as I make my way Mad Max-like across the highways.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So the author has better sources than the U.S. government
read the book,
you still dont get it, this goverment IS oil.
In your world the goverment is holy, so i doubt
reading the book will change anything.
anyway, it was just a suggestion.
R
Gh0stFT
-
This just in. Experts have reported that we're all going to die. Someday.
-
Too little, too late (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/01022006/325/bush-says-u-s-must-kick-oil-habit.html)?