Life w/o oil

[Aileron]

Not in every case. In most cases, plastic is easy enough to replace. Plastic bottles can be replaced with gl!@#$%^&* ones. Plastic lunch boxes replaced with metal.

 

However, there are some devices that can only be made out of plastic. One example, a medical IV tube. (If you can think of another thing to make IV tubes out of, you still aren't damaging my point, there is most likely some device that must be made out of plastic.)

 

The thing is like several people mentioned is that oil is not going to run out suddenly like that, but slowly and gradually. When this happens, those products that can easily be made out of other materials will shift. This will slow down the rate of consumption, buying more time. Those products that must be made out of plastic will hold off until new technologies are developed.

 

Overall, it is a serious problem, no more, no less. It shouldn't be overlooked, yet it shouldn't be made out to be the end of civilization.

[»D1st0rt]

I had a weird thought. You know how environmental characteristics changes when our position and rotation/angle relative to the sun changes? Maybe we're also influenced by our position and rotation/angle relative to the center of the galaxy.... or something.....

[madhaha]

Not in every case.  In most cases, plastic is easy enough to replace.  Plastic bottles can be replaced with gl!@#$%^&* ones.  Plastic lunch boxes replaced with metal.

 

However, there are some devices that can only be made out of plastic.  One example, a medical IV tube.  (If you can think of another thing to make IV tubes out of, you still aren't damaging my point, there is most likely some device that must be made out of plastic.)

 

The thing is like several people mentioned is that oil is not going to run out suddenly like that, but slowly and gradually.  When this happens, those products that can easily be made out of other materials will shift.  This will slow down the rate of consumption, buying more time.  Those products that must be made out of plastic will hold off until new technologies are developed.

 

Overall, it is a serious problem, no more, no less.  It shouldn't be overlooked, yet it shouldn't be made out to be the end of civilization.

Your point has a flaw. In order to use an alternative material such as gl!@#$%^&* or metal, we would require power to manufacture it. This power is traditionally derived from oil and we don't have a good replacement at hand. A metal lunchbox would actually consume more oil to produce and transport than a plastic one.

 

Its the economics that hurt us. Suddenly we're faced with a scenario where much of our technology is going to become economically unviable. We suddenly can't afford to power our powerstations, manufacture our metals and gl!@#$%^&* cheaply, cheap fertiliser will dissapear, the car will be too expensive for the middle class person to run. Due to the current size of our society, we can't simply switch to steam because we don't have enough trees and coal for everyone. Oil is at the heart of our technology because it provided so much power so readily and chemically we could do amazing things with it. Now unless we discover a new, more readily availible source of energy and implement it FAST, we'll have to switch to less availible sources of power. Its what we call supply and demand. Our demand for power is very high. Our supply is suddenly going to be very small. Consequently, less people are going to be able to afford the level of energy we're used to. True we can stretch it a little bit with good design and technology but basically we're going to go through a very bad patch where most people are suddenly very poor.

[Aileron]

I'm in agreement there. However, it isn't that bleak. When oil goes down, something else will replace it. Billions of dollars will be invested into research and implimentation of the new technology. A new industry will be born, and money will flow into the hands of the working class citizens who work in that industry. The growth cause by the emergence of this new industry will counter the decline caused by the death of the oil industry.

[Wax]

We should just go solar.

 

It could be just as effecient or even better than other ways with a little work.

 

And its better for the enviroment.

[Killing Ape]

solar costs too much money and produces too little energy... hydrogen fuel cells are the next wave to replace energy. especially cars, airplanes ect see: http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_te..._fcv/index.html and http://4hydrogen.com/about.html

[Wax]

I see.

[Aileron]

I dunno, I think Nuclear is in for a comeback in the electric power industry.

 

Hydrogen does look good, but so does alcohol. The only reason alchohol didn't work was mostly because of pressure from the oil industry. That pressure will not exist if oil corporations need to spend all of their money drilling to the bottom of the ocean. Still, my money is on hydrogen.

[Tipme]

they should hurry and make those travel tubes like in futurama

eezzeepeezzeeeezzeepeeze

[madhaha]

I'm in agreement there.  However, it isn't that bleak.  When oil goes down, something else will replace it.  Billions of dollars will be invested into research and implimentation of the new technology.  A new industry will be born, and money will flow into the hands of the working class citizens who work in that industry.  The growth cause by the emergence of this new industry will counter the decline caused by the death of the oil industry.

Yes but in the mean time, we're screwed Sure our grandchildren might live in happier times but we are going to be in big trouble. And this is !@#$%^&*uming the government or someone invests this sort of resources in new power/fuel sources.

 

Wax: Please go read. Solar != practical and != good on the environment.

 

Hydrogen is not an energy source until we get the fusion reactors working. We have made no significant progress in the last 2 decades. We have 1 decade to complete research and implement it. Fuel cells take hydrogen derived from OIL or another power source and convert it back to electricity. Its a storage medium.

 

Nuclear powerstations are STILL being decommissioned and the fear of terrorists is probably going to raise lots of kneejerk protests. Also we can't afford it, nor can we build enough of them in time + we can't use it directly to fuel planes and cars. Our cities are built around car use.

 

Alcohol requires VAST amounts of land and it requires more energy to produce than it gives. In other words its another storage medium.

[Ancient Power]

ehh? all we need to do to solve the issues in our lifetime is to mine all the oil in siberia, then dump the responisbility to our kids.. and hopefully by then, new technology will be availiable =D

[Aileron]

Ironically, that is a viable solution.

 

 

We might have enough land for alchohol. We currently have an overabundance of food, have to pay farmers not to farm or burn harvests, and have constant problems with urban sprawl.

 

If we impliment alchohol, all three of these problems will be solved. In addition, if we use genetically engineered crops, we might be able to produce enough alcohol to meet demand, especially if we find ways to reduce car use around cities.

 

Alcohol could work.

 

 

Seriously though, you are forgetting that all of these things are either available now, or in development. The problem isn't that alternatives don't exist, the problem is that the alternatives are expensive and impractical. However, soon oil will become expensive and impractical. When this happens, consumers will shift to whatever technology is least expensive. When money starts flowing into the new technology, it will bolster a new industry and help the economy.

 

Yes, energy will be expensive. However, when it does, the economy will be better off enough that we will be able to afford the expense.

[mr. scruff]

Hydrgogen can be used as a fuel, simply by burning it. No need for fusion.

Alchol takes very little energy to produce.

Alternative energy sources are expensive mearly because they are not m!@#$%^&* produced, once things are m!@#$%^&* produced their price drops dramatically. We would already have alternative energy sources if the oil industry didn't own the American goverment. What is really needed is a total revamp of American politics, meaning that goverments are not funded in main by industries which make their money from oil, and hence the goverments are obliged to implement pro oil policies, if they want funded for the next election. They can't fund research into alternative fuel sources because of this. Also, your poli!@#$%^&*ions need to be prohibited from owning shares in companies which would be negativly or positivly effected by desisions made. Nearly the entire Bush political team are funded and own shares in big industries which depend on oil. Because of this America is the most poluting country in the world. Your goverment refuses to implement laws meaning oil consumption goes down, such as making cares more fuel efficient.

 

America is -*BAD WORD*-ing the world over because of it's -*BAD WORD*- political system. The only reason your president is even in power is because many thousands of blacks were stoped from voting in florida, because they had similar birth dates/names/social security numbers as convicted fellons, who are not alowed to vote. Blacks predominatly vote democrat. They were stoped from voting by Jeb Bush, a brother of George Bush. Also, when votes were being recounted (Al Gore would have been found the winner) they were stoped, by the supreme court, and the members of the supreme court who stoped it? Personal Friends of groege the 1st.

 

After reading about the election, and the policies implemented by your "elected" presidents, i was frankly amazed that such things would be alowed to happen, without m!@#$%^&* protest.

 

In summary america sucks, move to scotland.

[Aileron]

1) The American political system is irrelevent.

 

2) Bush won about 50-50. If they had the same election the next day, he might have had the majority. Don't whine about a handful of votes.

 

3) That whole black people with names similar to felons is BS and you know it. Where the heck did you get that? Dateline?

 

4) The American government has good reason to be influenced by the oil industry. Its a staple industry of the economy of any country. To ignore it would be to hurt the economy. Sorry, the American government shouldn't be out to ruin the American economy. That's one of your criticisms of Bush, btw. Make up your mind. Do you want a good economy or do you want to keep the government from catering to industry. You can't have both.

 

5) The Bush administration didn't cause the US to use oil. The geography of the US caused it, long before he was elected mind you.

[madhaha]

Hydrogen does not occur naturally in gaseous form. You need to make it. You can do this from fossil fuels or electrolysis which uses electricity generated by oil powered power stations.

 

Hence, hydrogen is NOT a powersource unless you use it in a form of fusion.

 

Regardless of where else we can get oil from, the GLOBAL supply still runs out in 30 years time max.

[»ZiGNoTZaG]

yes yes it doesnt pay to forget the inumarable amount of things that have some chemical or element dirived from FF's in one way or another.

 

but it also doesnt pay to forget, its not all about using something totaly new to smooth out the effect any shortage of oil would have. its also about using the limited amount in a more constrained fashion.

 

cars today get close to same amount of horsepower using about 1/3 the amount of fuel as earlier I.C.E. vehicles. the thing is, nobody at this point would want to be seen driving an electric vehicle. that will all change.

 

theres an ez way to gauge the severity of the problem. if more than half of the next years new cars use alternative methods of power, then start to worry. the car manufacturers wont produce cars that wont sell. and they know the oil market very well, know that.

 

its not about questions, which you seem to have very many, its about answers, which you seem to have very few.

 

recycling will take on whole new meanings. just think of the sheer number of things in this world made of plastic. and only after hundreds of thousands years does the stuff decompose. its not going anywhere.

 

its about better recycling and smart power usage. right down to motion triggered lights, and electric lawn mowers.

 

and thats the problem. people do what they have to or are driven to do by desire and nothing more. people are content to sit idle up until the brink of doom, and then act in need. but dont underestimate the ability behind that need.

[Aileron]

Hydrogen does not occur naturally in gaseous form. You need to make it. You can do this from fossil fuels or electrolysis which uses electricity generated by oil powered power stations.

Hydrogen does not occur naturally in gaseous form. You need to make it. You can do this from fossil fuels or electrolysis which uses electricity generated by nuclear powered power stations.

 

problem solved.

[Dav]

solar costs too much money and produces too little energy... hydrogen fuel cells are the next wave to replace energy. especially cars, airplanes ect  see: http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_te..._fcv/index.html and http://4hydrogen.com/about.html

ok solar costs too much money at the moment. Its a very gpood source, extreemly green and as techniology advances thay will be ablwe to make it cheaper.

 

Hydrogen fuel cells are a very good way to do thigs. Problems arise in 2 ways tho

 

1. Hydrolosis (splitting of water) is endothermic. this means energy has to be piut in to go it and so another source is needed. this may be oil solar enery.

 

2. burning of hydrogen will increace water vapor in the air and increace humidity rainfall chamnginf the weather systems

[MonteZuma]

2. burning of hydrogen will increace water vapor in the air and increace humidity rainfall chamnginf the weather systems

If you wanted to take this argument to the limit you could even say that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. But I doubt that water vapour emissions would make much difference to weather or climate at all. As far as I know, burning any *fossil fuel* will also release water vapour.

 

And...humidity levels are probably unnaturally low, especially in places where there are more cars, because of reduced evapotranspiration due to clearing of vegetation.

[MonteZuma]

Regardless of where else we can get oil from, the GLOBAL supply still runs out in 30 years time max.

People have been saying this for 30 years and we still find more of the stuff all the time. I think there will be a fairly smooth transition from oil to other fuel sources...and more efficient use of existing reserves. We wont have a calamitous energy crisis for a long time. Rising oil prices will probably be inevitable though.

 

But I suspect that we may have an environmental calamity (which may translate into a social and economic calamity) if we don't stop messing with the atmosphere. I just hope this doesn't happen in my lifetime.

[MonteZuma]

1)  The American political system is irrelevent.

 

2)  Bush won about 50-50.  If they had the same election the next day, he might have had the majority.  Don't whine about a handful of votes.

 

3)  That whole black people with names similar to felons is BS and you know it.  Where the heck did you get that?  Dateline?

 

4)  The American government has good reason to be influenced by the oil industry.  Its a staple industry of the economy of any country.  To ignore it would be to hurt the economy.  Sorry, the American government shouldn't be out to ruin the American economy.  That's one of your criticisms of Bush, btw.  Make up your mind.  Do you want a good economy or do you want to keep the government from catering to industry.  You can't have both.

 

5)  The Bush administration didn't cause the US to use oil.  The geography of the US caused it, long before he was elected mind you.

A little late but.............

 

(1) Political systems are relevant to this debate. More important though are the social and economic systems...not just of the US...but of the world. Each of these systems decide how we satisfy our needs and wants. The problem with oil is that we are satisfying needs and wants unsustainably.

 

(2) Bush lost the election but got in because the US political system is screwed. Fact. Whether the US system is better or worse than the Scottish system is debatable. But the fact remains that the Australian system is better than both.

 

(3) Everything on TV is true - unless it comes from CNN, NBC or ABC(US). In which case it is just US propaganda.

 

(4) Exactly. That is why the political system is important in the debate. Politics is a tangled web. But politicians and governments have the power to make plans for the future and change the way things are done. This requires vision and political will. That is what is lacking in US politics at the moment.

 

(5) This is a chicken or egg problem. After all...the car was invented in Europe...and the car is behind much of the oil consumption. I would prefer to say that the entrepreneurialism of some US immigrants and native born people started the passion for oil (energy) and led us to this point. But who started the problem is irrelevant. The issue is who has the power to fix this problem? Much of that power lies with the USA. The US (especially the Bush administration) is not exercising that power...hence we have a problem.

[MonteZuma]

...its not about questions, which you seem to have very many, its about answers, which you seem to have very few.

 

recycling will take on whole new meanings. just think of the sheer number of things in this world made of plastic. and only after hundreds of thousands years does the stuff decompose. its not going anywhere....

I agree with most of what you say...but the world needs optimists and pessimists. At the moment there are more questions than answers so it isn't surprising that this is reflected in some of the posts here. That is what happens when you operate on the edge of scientific understanding.

 

I have issues with the debate about plastics. Plastics are fairly inert...so what if they are still around in 10, 100 or 1,000 years? Sure they look ugly, and some plastics are probably nastier than others...but in general I don't think they will do any lasting and irreversible damage to anything. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Changing the atmosphere is a different kettle of fish.

[Aileron]

1) To some extent the rotational paterns of the moon are relevent to this debate. The rest of your statement is true, in that the primary problem lies in the social and economic. My point was that we should stay focused on the primary cause and not get dragged down into the secondary stuff.

 

2) There is nothing wrong with the US system. It does a lot of secondary things. I will admit that without the electorial college system Bush would not have gotten elected. However, Gore would not have been elected either! The candidates were tailored to the system, and if you change the system who knows who would have gotten elected. This may be all the reason more to do this, but figure this - Strom Thurmond (a 90 some yr old Senetor too conservative for my tastes) could have won the last election had we not had the electoral college system. PLZ, get over 2000.

 

3) LOL, funny joke. Oh? You're serious? The media is all a bunch of half-truths and biased data. It isn't quite as far as propeganda, but its close. However, don't think for a second this problem is isolated to the US. I would say every country that has news in it has this semi-propeganda, Australia included.

 

4) Bush for one has vision and political will. That is ultimately his best quality and what liberals hate about him. What part of "we are going to invade Iraq and make it a democracy" doesn't imply this? It has vision, a democratic Iraq, and political will, the desire to push for a war. He is just going in the opposite direction that liberals like yourself want him to go.

 

5) Bush is exercising power. Last year he invested money into Hydrogen power and he is a firm supporter of nuclear power. These could be token actions to be political, or this could be a realization that oil's time is ending. Either way, despite Bush's past ties to the oil industry, recognize that has a current motive to solve this problem.

 

 

But plz, lets all get back to topic. This is turning into one of those Anti-Bush/Anti-US rants that take us nowhere.

[Dav]

(5) This is a chicken or egg problem.  After all...the car was invented in Europe...and the car is behind much of the oil consumption.  I would prefer to say that the entrepreneurialism of some US immigrants and native born people started the passion for oil (energy) and led us to this point.  But who started the problem is irrelevant.  The issue is who has the power to fix this problem?  Much of that power lies with the USA.  The US (especially the Bush administration) is not exercising that power...hence we have a problem.

i know my spelling is wrong so dont rant...

 

America being as large and as rich as it is really had no good reason not to sign the keoto agreement. Bust said somthing like it would cost businesses money to cut emissions. Isnt that just obivious? thing is all these busnesses are stupidly rich, and the govenment has more then enough mony to fund busnesses that cant and GREEN power systems.

[Aileron]

Still, there is no sufficient reason for the US government to get up and rearrange the US economy because Europe is asking them to, and not even politely asking. If Europe doesn't offer the US any carrot, it shouldn't blame the US for not tagging along.