what do you think the world will be like when the oil fields are dry?
 

the "value of 911s and high gas $$" thread got me thinking....

will it be total chaos? (guys will be building forts out of their early 911's). there is no telling how much oil is left in the middle east, or if any will be found in alaska. one thing for sure, petroleum is the crack cocaine of our planet. we are 100% fully dependent on oil. finding more is not a sustainable solution.

so what do you think will happen? world hunger? back to the basics? defending our homes with swords? what?

(on a side note: why do we pay so much tax for gas at the pumps, along with the government subsidizing the oil companies to keep gas prices down? i dont get it, and i cant find an unbiased answer anywhere)

Here's an interesting article that deals with this subject:

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_16693.shtml

Mike

Nuclear.

Hopefully fusion technology. Clean, arguably safer than fossil fuels. This is one area where I think the French have it right.

We will travel in tubes!

Not much will change.

Oil for plastics, synthetic fabrics and lubrication can be gotten from coal and oil shale probably in supplies that are almost limitless for that purpose.

Energy consumption is another thing. However, we know of enough alternate energy resources: Nuke, wind, solar, wave action, that I don't think we will be hurting for power.

Yes, in 50 years when the US will still be getting most of it's power from the middle east...however it might be in the form of Solar. Where else gets that degree of uninterrupted sunlight with HUGE empty spaces? Just about nowhere.

I think you meant "fusion" technology? I agree. If we can solve the technical hurdles associated with fusion, it will change the world.

Mike

Right. I always confuse fission with fusion. At least I can say "Nook-lee-ur" ;)

Who writes this crap? I mean really?

"I'm not optimistic about the Southeast, either, for different reasons. I think it will be subject to substantial levels of violence as the grievances of the formerly middle class boil over and collide with the delusions of Pentecostal Christian extremism."

I grew up in an age when NYC was written off - popular movies of the era imagined a future Manhattan as a vast prison colony. Then what happened? Rudy got elected and now you have $1,000,000 one bed-room apartments.

Long, long term fossil fuels might not be a good idea. In the medium long term, I still dont see hydro-carbons running out - coal and tar sands in North America alone could keep us going for a long, long time.

I lived in Japan for years, where per-capita energy usage is much lower. Life was pretty good. Smaller homes, less AC, smaller cars, more public transport.. No big deal. Do awayt with silly SUVs and 5 bedroon McMansions in FLA - we could easily use half as much crude oil with little dislocation.

Eventually fossil fuels will be reserved for industrial production applications.

If (when) our cars are all electric and charged by remote fusion plants the air quality will be spectacular. This planet seems to have an infinite capacity for self-cleaning.

Everything we need can be gotten with bio-based means including gas and diesel - it may be more pricey at first but scale economics would balence it out and eventually be just the cost to do business.

I wouldn't worry about running out of petro anytime soon. Trust me when I tell you this, there is more than enough to last another 500 years...that is if we are able to breath by then!

(visions of Mad Max)

It'll be colder.

If the Prius and Insight are any indication, it'll be pretty friggin boring.

Dan

How much oil is there, actually?

Boring indeed. Just like the proposed California emission control standards. This just a way to take away your P-car, boat, chain saw, light plane and the rest of your toys. It is not about saving fuel or the environment. It is just someone who knows better, telling you how to live.

all while they fly around their private jets, burning more fuel on each trip than we'll touch in a year.

It'll be great....

The people now in control of most of the oil reserves will have to stop ordering Rolls and LAmbos by the plane load, go back to living in tents and herding camels, we'll have no more reasons to try and control the middle east - which should take care of the root cause of terrorism and one way or another reduce the chances of WW3 by 50% ;-)

Seriously, though, I think we'll find workable alternatives WAY before we run out. There are those who think that much like natural gas reserves, the earth is a giant combustible "maker". I don't know, but I have faith in science - now there's a contradiction in terms !

Incandescent light bulbs v. fluorescent light bulbs, it cost more energy to use the incandescent but it costs more energy to make fluorescent ones. Save here to spend there.

I ran 93 octane in my car for 6 months and ran 87 for 6 months – the higher octane provided 4 extra miles per gallon but price increase made it a wash.

Either way, it will cost money on one end or the other; it will also create pollution on one end or the other. Fission or fusion power, either way it will require a bunch or energy to get it going (construction, materials, start-up). The benefits for reduced emissions or dependency may be achieved but not for some time.

The only way to reduce emissions or dependency is very very simple – just don’t use as much!

It’s the same way and maybe the only way to loose weight – just don’t eat as much! Plain and simple…

what do you think the world will be like when the oil fields are dry?

smaller

What do ya mean Lubby...I gotta cut out the Buffets.....

WW3 was fought from 1948 till 1990.....it was called the Cold War..

WW4 I think maybe upon us....the Islamic Fundlementalists are trying to creat CHAOS....

U know something I knew as a kid from reading history of Islam and the expansion of the religion form 600 till the the 1600's that it was an unstable religion...that if the Muslims get a wild hair up their a$$es they go crazy and Jihad...but I never really paid much more attention to them and what is/was going on...

About Oil...there more oil left in the USA than ever pumped out...it is just a function of COST to pump....all those oil Crickets that have been dormant for nearly 50 years may now start pumping again...

Nuclear...yep, Solar...required on new housing construction ..yep....Hybrid cars of one form or another...yep...I have said before that by 2020 or so the infenal combusiton engine will be passe...sure there will still be alot of 2005 model cars on the road and early Poraches to....but the new ones will be....

Not before Sept 25 - I'll be in LV 25 & 26 and the Belchlagio is calling our names!

John Kennedy challenged America to put a man on the moon and safely return him to Earth by the end of the decade. Similarly, I would like to see a US President challenge America to be 80% engergy independent by the year XXXX. Of course, that would not be THIS "president."

Fusion is it. It will take some time for us to figure out how to handle the tremendous heat generated, but they're working on it. And it will deliver all our power needs. In the meantime, I'm actually for fission power. It can be done safely. And we've got other sources as well....solar, wind, etc. Hydrogen, maybe. Battery technology is coming forward quickly. And no, those cars will not need to be turtles. 50 electric horsepower is quite a bit. I mean, electric motored cars can be made to beat the pants off gas powered ones.

The only reason we're sticking with dino fuel is because so many people and corporations are making so much money from it. One guy comes to mind, who lives in a big White House in Washington DC.

Supe, you have deviated from the party line. I feel compelled to report you to the liberal constabulary for heresy, or maybe the crime of independant thinking. ;)

moses, he made up for it with:
The only reason we're sticking with dino fuel is because so many people and corporations are making so much money from it. One guy comes to mind, who lives in a big White House in Washington DC.
:rolleyes:

There's still hope... never give up hope.

Actually he has it right. The French generate something like 90% of their electricity from Fission - nuclear reactors. Three mile island stopped it dead in it's tracks here and Chernobyl after that was no small issue either.

I still think fission is a good idea. Clean, cheap, and we've gotta have better safeguards...

Fusion is probably way out there, even if they can do it in a lab in 20 years...

maybe closer than you think - even as soon as 2007, thing is it will take a bunch of energy to kick it off.

Fission is good, but fusion offers energy potentials that blow fission out of the water. I think it's about time to start cranking out some more nuclear plants myself, though. The safeguards are already in place. If they can solve the spent fuel issues, that would help.

We learned alot from TMI and the whole Chernobyl thing shouldn't even be a factor in the US public's mind. Whole different ball game, that was.

Mike

If you're speaking of fusion, I think we're a lot farther away than that. I work with some folks "who work with some folks" that are currently trying to figure this out at Los Alamos and from what they told me a couple of months ago, we're not much closer to an operating fusion reactor than we were years ago.

Mike

For transportation, biofuel such as ethanol makes the greatest sense in the world: it burns clean, requires minor or no modification on combustions engines, it helps the farmers use their corn production in the midwest, the solid by products can feed poultry, and it would cut the US dependancy on midwest oil. It is not more widespread only because the major oil companies are busy gouging the consumer, by raising the prices just enough that it is still beareable, and not yet worth the effort changing driving habits, let alone investing in biofuel.

Aurel

Thank you, Moses. From my perspective, it has been independent thinking that has gotten me to my conclusions. The labels are just an added amusement. Liberalism is not party thinking. In fact, historically the Democratic party's bigest liability is its diversity. The Republican party on the other hand, is monochromatic.

And yeah, I think it's interesting that:

1. The President of the United States of America is an oil baron.
2. Gasoline prices are the highest in history and....
3. At the same time, oil companies are making more profits than any corporations evern have in the entire history of American commerce.

Coincidence? Perhaps, if you're not very smart.
Conspiracy? Naw, humans don't play games for personal gain, do they?
Naivete'? If you choose to deny both of the above.

Alternative energy solutions are being pushed. But by the wrong people. They are being pushed by folks who care, and folks who understand the technologies. The pushback is coming from those who are making money from the current system, and the puppets they place into power.

I was under the impression that ethenol took more energy to produce than you got out of it.
-Chris

EDIT: Here's a link UC scientist says ethanol uses more energy than it makes

No, not when adjusted for inflation.

Well, when the world runs out of gas, I believe the LORD HUMONGOUS will have a few things to say

Then, of course those weenie do gooders will trick Max into hauling a tanker full of sand, while they escape with the juice.

Full speech on: http://people.thirteen.net/~ned/

I guess, it depends who pays for the study...

Hosein Shapouri, an economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has also cracked down on Patzek's energy calculations.

"It's true that the original ethanol plants in the 1970s went bankrupt. But Patzek doesn't consider the impact new, more efficient production technologies have had on the ethanol industry," he said.

Shapouri's most recent analysis, which the USDA published in 2004, comes to the exact opposite conclusion of Patzek's: Ethanol, he said, has a positive energy balance, containing 67 percent more energy than is used to manufacture it.

At any rate, ethanol looks more practical on a shorter term than hydrogen. I say, put solar panels on houses, ethanol in cars, and the money of the Iraq war in fusion research, and we`d be in good shape. Now, if there was also a way to use all the calories contained on fat people...we would get far ahead :rolleyes:

Aurel

Wow, I did some research and I am amazed:

1 lb of gasoline contains 5166 calories
1 lb of body fat contains 3500 calories

So, assuming you have a car that does 20 miles/gallon, that is 1550 calories/mile, you could run your car 3500/1550 = 2.25 miles wih one pound of your own fat.

Or, you would have lost 100 lbs after only 225 miles. Cool, huh ?

Aurel

Wouldn't that likely change when we start creating it in the volumes we create oil based products?

Volume is the key...

Aurel, how many calories in diesel? I was under the impression that it produces 10X the energy of gasoline.

As far as ethanol goes, five years ago my Father-in-laws farm produced soybeans and corn for animal feed. Now, 50% goes to ConAgra for ethanol production. He thinks that in 2 to 4 years his entire crop will be for ethanol. He doen't mind much, he says that the prices are very fair and if it releives our dependency on overseas oil he is all for it - as am I.

Biodiesel is another story, 75% comes from animal renderings and really doesn't make ecomonic sense yet. The giv still juices it with tons of subsidies.

Per google, 1 gallon of diesel is 139,000 BTU, versus 124,000 BTU for 1 gallon of gasoline. Whatever a BTU is (and I don`t really care to know, since it is another stupid british unit), I conclude that 1 gallon of diesel is 139x5166/124= 5791 calories.

Aurel

Actually, riding a bike is much more energy efficient than driving a car. Someone calculated here that his bike was doing 900 miles per gallon of vegetable oil.

Aurel