Ancient Power Posted February 11, 2004 Report Posted February 11, 2004 http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ Long, but a good read nevertheless.
Yupa Posted February 11, 2004 Report Posted February 11, 2004 was sort of interesting !@#$%^&*uming the information is correct, I would guess the uneducated and unfortunate will be the ones to suffer (as usual) the author says that we won't be able to produce as much energy from other methods than fossil fuels...the thing is, we DON'T NEED that much energy maybe the time is soon coming when we stop -*BAD WORD*-ing over the environment
Aileron Posted February 11, 2004 Report Posted February 11, 2004 This is nothing new. Almost everyone has a desire to reduce dependency on oil, and find alternative soucres for fuel. My opinion - nuclear power in general with hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. where they can be applied for electricity. Hydrogen cells or pure alchohol for cars. (Although in the future we will all be flying helicopter-like things around) Akai, you are right in that we don't need as much energy as we are using, but everyone is reducing as much energy as is practical for them. Face it, the high electric and gas bill at the end of the month is (or will be when shortages appear) encouragement enough.
»ZiGNoTZaG Posted February 11, 2004 Report Posted February 11, 2004 seems like most of the time most studies such as these seem to just totaly ignore the human capacity to adapt to any enviorment. in ancient times this was done by molding yourself the static surroundings and habitat. this was acceptible cuss for the most part the lifestyle of living creatures was the same across the entire globe. in the present it is done by molding the surroundings to fit your ever changing needs and desires. point, you cant really know what will happen. even basing your thoughts on statistcal information from the present about what would be needed and what could be done about it. when they really need to. people find a way. a way which seems obvious such as perhaps nuclear energy would appear to some. it becomes second nature. i wouldnt fret over a power crisis or fuel shortage. if anything like that occurs in our productive lifetimes. it will be due to war. and when gas gets like 10$ a gallon, you will see ALOT of electric vehicles, which in turn would take a huge load off of the demand for the FF themsleves. back to that whole adapt thing. or something like that....
Aileron Posted February 11, 2004 Report Posted February 11, 2004 Good point, but putting effort into it will make the transition smoother.
Bacchus Posted February 11, 2004 Report Posted February 11, 2004 we'll adapt to economical contexts, but nature won't... they're predicting that at present speed, arctic polar cap will have melt 40%, which means less reflective surface for the heat to be dispersed into the air and more methane will find it's way in the atmosphere. Which means heat will be stored in the ground, which means that temperature will raise (due to methane). Air temperatude = energy = movement. storms will built, temperature will raise, etc. it's all natural cycle but pollution (namely oil product and by-product) is accelerating it to un-natural speed. what's usually taking geographical age to happen is happening in less than a century. no more oil? the faster the better imo. then we'll have other issues to adress...
»CypherJF Posted February 11, 2004 Report Posted February 11, 2004 we'll adapt to economical contexts, but nature won't... they're predicting that at present speed, arctic polar cap will have melt 40%, which means less reflective surface for the heat to be dispersed into the air and more methane will find it's way in the atmosphere. Which means heat will be stored in the ground, which means that temperature will raise (due to methane). Air temperatude = energy = movement. storms will built, temperature will raise, etc. it's all natural cycle but pollution (namely oil product and by-product) is accelerating it to un-natural speed. what's usually taking geographical age to happen is happening in less than a century. no more oil? the faster the better imo. then we'll have other issues to adress... wouldn't that induce flooding also?
Ancient Power Posted February 12, 2004 Author Report Posted February 12, 2004 i think flooding was implied...
Yupa Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 omfg not water! PLEASE NO! NOT WATER! IT WILL KILL US! WATER IS BAD! SWEET HOLY MOTHER-*BAD WORD*-ITY -*BAD WORD*- -*BAD WORD*- -*BAD WORD*- I CAN'T SWIM SAVE ME!!!
Trained Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 Ill be your lifegaurd akai It would suck life without oil, atleast gas wont be so expensive, wait it wont exist.
Dav Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 1. gas will exist, oil isnt the only sourse 2. Whn oil runs out, twe will ove to more grnne fules. Electrisity can be generated by solar and wind (i dont much agree with hydroelictric, -*BAD WORD*-ming is highly destructive). Necular is also good but a few things need to be done with that. 3. You was saying about how humans adapt thier environmet to suit them. That is very true, we adapt our envirinmet to best suit the conditions we work best under. In essance we remove any pressures for adaption thriugh natural selection. By adapting out environment we have found ourselves where we are today. Also we are not the only animals to do this, a bever will create a dam across a rvier causing an area of still water to be formed. This changes its environmet to suit it.
Aileron Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 You forgot termites who build mounds and prairie dogs which dig their own burrows. The serious thing I don't get is why we use plastic so much. There is so many alternatives in a lot of cases. Here is a big one - polyester instead of fur. Here we have fur, a renewable cheap resource, and we are deciding to take oil, a nonrenewable resource thats bad for the planet in so many ways. It is a sign of environmentalist short-sightedness. They view it a preferrable to save a few creatures today than save the whole environment for tomorrow. Seriously, the minute a truly right-wing environmentalist group is built, this problem will be over.
madhaha Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 So basically none of you READ the article that addressed all of your counterarguments... I'll make this short. The oil crash is inevitable, everyone acknowledges that oil is both finite and running out. The article and most textbooks, scientists, geologists etc. agree that this will happen between now and 2030 at the latest. This isn't the end of oil production but the end of cheap oil. Our main reliance on oil is AGRICULTURE. No oil. No Haber Process. No fertiliser. No more intensive farming. I suppose China might make it because the traditional rice farming methods uses ox dung as a fertiliser and is in fact equally productive as western methods but much of that has been replaced by tractors now. We CERTAINLY won't be able to afford m!@#$%^&* importing fruit and vegetables from far distant places in order to sait our desire for oranges in the winter and other stupidities. Next we've got transport. No more oil means no more flying for most people as aviation fuel is derived from crude oil. Enjoy the recent budget flights while they last. We have no m!@#$%^&* produced alternatively fueled cars. Don't say "gas power" because that only has a decade or two at most over oil and besides our usage will increase dramatically as more people use it as an alternative. No ambulances. No police cars. Not outside MAJOR areas at least. I think we can safely kiss lorries goodbye and perhaps we'll have to go back to our much neglected canal system. Not sure how the US will do with such a vast amount of land to cover. Shipping is going to be very expensive. No oil, no power. This is going to hit almost every industry in a big way since most use oil powered equipment for example most steelworks use oil furnaces. Oil powerstations are already in lots of trouble in the uk and with cheap oil gone they're as good as closed. No plastics. -*BAD WORD*- I'm just going to end the list there. Basically the world is screwed unless we actually switch sometime this decade and fast. That isn't happening.
»ZiGNoTZaG Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 tsk tsk, always the pesemist mad. of course we are going to run out of things we use faster then they can be created. the question is when. consider the current access methods to large amounts of oil. mainly all from land sources. dry land. here and there they have those off shore stations. but not nearly as many as you will see in the future. i guarentee you that. and i forget the ratio, but its daunting. the earth is like 1/8th land. or sum shet like that. there is much demand to be satisfied as long as the public is willing to sacrifice the well being of the ocean and recieve later side effects from that. and everyones big ole suv with a v8 tells me that they are. 30 years? those guys are like worse case scenario. global warming and never ending storms? now thats a differant story, but not some catastrophic event. the rising of the tides to new heights and the flooding of lowlands will occour alot more frequently over many a years if it is in fact the effect descibed in the theory. on the other hand tho, dont forget the scale of cosmic happenings. the sheer complexinty of all the elements involved in the heating of the earth is immense. for all we know the entire solar system could move into some position in the universe where it gets alot less average amount of light from surrounding star systems than what is normal. and presto ice-age. who can really say. of course you really have to believe that the earth is not the "center of universe" to really allow yourself to picture that. what is a number worth when you are selling infinity?
Aileron Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 Notice that now people are beginning to recognize this as a real problem. Gas has risen in price greatly in the last two-years, and the most recent trend in automobiles is to move away from the SUVs and towards smaller four wheel drives. If not for the planet, just to make it easier to withdraw from middle eastern politics. Face it, the less oil there is the more economic forces are going to push people away from oil use. Oil is going to get really really expensive before it runs out, and researchers have a lot of money and reputation to gain from an alternative. Society can and will adjust in time.
mr. scruff Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 Life without oil would be horrible. The only western developed country who didn't agree to lower oil consumtion and polution was the USA. Countries like that are -*BAD WORD*-ing the world over.
»D1st0rt Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 what's usually taking geographical age to happen is there any way someone can say that when they've never experienced a whole geographical age before?
Yupa Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 ... goegraphical: 1 : of or relating to geography2 : belonging to or characteristic of a particular region
madhaha Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 Er -*BAD WORD*-o? 30 years is the BEST CASE SCENARIO. Worst case scenario is next year we find out we've already peaked. The CONSERVATIVE estimate is 10-15 years. The earth is 3/4 ocean, not 7/8ths. You make setting up oil rigs sound easy and finding new undersea oil fields sound a doddle. We have around 10 years to make enough oil rigs and supply lines to meet with our global demand, !@#$%^&*uming we can find enough oil. We will need to find new fields every 10 years after that. How long do you think we can sustain that? Answer: we can't and we'd just be delaying the inevitable. The estimates assume that our demand for power keeps going at our current rate. If we started using more power the estimate drops to a much shorter time. THAT would be pessimistic but not unthinkable. Scruff: Eastern countries aren't doing much better. Developing countries are DEVELOPING. That means they're doing a lot of construction work and using a lot of natural resources, particularly oil. What's more, they don't have the same level of technology implemented so they don't have a lot of "green" car engines or ecofriendly fridges and the sheer scale of steel use is scary to behold. Basically their industrial revolution has just started while ours has ended. We're not talking tidal waves and meteors. We're talking about suddenly finding out everything is suddenly very expensive and that we can no longer travel, that loads of people are potentially unemployed and new infrastructure won't be in place for at least a decade. The website predicts war, at least on a lesser scale if the developing countries don't decide to go for whats left of the oil. The guy says he is an eternal optimist. If anyone in the UK can remember the oil protesters, remember it took only half a week for all our cars to grind to a halt as the supply was cut for about 3 days. Ok, we have some reserves for an emergency but they aren't going to last a year. They definately aren't going to last 10 years. No web pe!@#$%^&*ion is going to help. No amount of "using less plastic bags and buying smaller cars" is going to find a solution. If anyone can find a solution, please let me know.
Yupa Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 we don't need a solution using oil for energy is stupid
Bacchus Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 is there any way someone can say that when they've never experienced a whole geographical age before? Be happy! yeah! we can! it's part of a big whole concept, the same that makes you belive the earth is spherical not a flat circle lost in space (you never saw a spherical earth, didn't you?) and oh, wonder...it's called woe... SCIENCE! The same peculiar mind trick allows us to see (measure) what will happen in the very, very near future {see Mad post/url above}. EDIT: Using oil is silly, try using vodka instead!
Aileron Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 I never thought I'd see this day, but Madhaha has taken a rational centralist view that I find myself in almost total agreement with. The solution is obviously a new source of power that replaces oil. Worse comes to worse, we could always use steam engines powered by burning wood or coal, which although not as efficient and clean, could function. Another source of power is alchohol based fuels. The only real problem with them is the lack of infrastructure, which will decrease in significance as oil becomes expensive. Hydrogen cell and electric cars may also happen in the future. While these are currently in development, they could easily be efficient enough down the line to work. The only current problem preventing the use of alternative fuel sources is that oil is cheaper. When oil is scarce and becomes expensive, alternative fuels will be cheaper. Don't worry about oil companies preventing the development of new technology. As oil becomes more scarce, these companies will get fewer and fewer resources to block new technology. Madhaha is right though about things getting really expensive. What I am talking about is oil coming up, not alternative fuel coming down. However, every time new technology is developed, the economy (world or regional) skyrockets. If we are lucky, the world or economy will increase enough to sustain the cost of the new technology.
»ZiGNoTZaG Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 mr.madhaha, yes yes, good good, your respone is quite refreshingly thought out as per usual. and no doubt you know way more about the subject then me. but i always see the light at the end of the tunnel. easy to find oil in the ocean? yes. exspesive yes. its more like the price of gas goes up, merely because the expense of extracting it is that much greater. how much more could it cost. im too lazy to do all that research. so well just over-guestimate. lets say it costs 3 times as much to fill one barrel of oil from an offshore site, than from a land based one. i just paid 1.60 (usd per gallon) for 6 gallons of gas for my dodge neon. i get 25-36 mpg depending on how i drive when i go back and forth to work with it. thats just about enough gas to get me to work all week long. so instead i would have had to pay 4.80pg for the same amount of fuel. thats about not because its supply is limited. but because it will take alot more effort to get it. thats 28 bucks to go at a minimum 150 miles. and its maybe about 15 miles to where i work. 30 miles a day minimum. its going to cost me 18 dollars more per week, 72 per month, 864 for the year. an easily bugeted number. er relatively i suppose. if 900$ is alot for ya. just means A) your either going to have to get a better job to pay for your I.C.E. vehicle. B)or get an electric one. 90 mpg cutting your cost of fuel more than in half. and those numbers are way off, due to the combined ratio of the ff still coming from land. thats the largest impact i can honestly see coming from a demand for oil. and over the slow treading of the years....like i said, until it becomes common place. you wont even look twice at an electric vehicle, or a factory with a huge solar panel extending way into the sky if it where possible for all the FF on earth to be total exhausted in like one year, i might be able to percieve any sort of political shockwave or some type of disaster or degridation of society due to the lack of oil. THAT is optimism. what you think the pumps are going to all dry up in like an instant and they will stand there and say "oh -*BAD WORD*-, i guess we are all out?" there will be no "suddenly finding out" other than in war.
mr. scruff Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 The main thing which is going to shaft us about losing oil, isn't a source of power, its plastics. Plastics are made from oil, and nearly everything we use today has plastic or some form of synthetic polymer derived from crude oil in it.
Yupa Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 then we'll just use something else...sheesh
Recommended Posts