NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally, do not know if there has been debate about this, or if there has even been a thread about this. That is why I decided to post a thread about it.

Anyhow, your first question will probably be 'What is peak-oil?', unless of course, there has been a thread about this before, or you are in touch with economical and enviromental problems that we face in the 21st century. Peak-oil is where the amount of oil, crude oil, also known as 'hydrocarbons' has reached its peak of production. After this peak is reached, oil production will practically fall down a cliff, and hit rock bottom, eventually. Some scientists predict that peak-oil will be in the next decade. Others think as late as 2035. Personally, I don't care when it happens, but its going to happen eventually, and most likely soon.

We all should know that oil, is the basis for most everything we use today, such as plastics, pesticides, fuels that heat our houses, run our cars, and fly us over seas. One peak-oil is reached, and we begin the slope downwards, these oils will get more expensive, and will not become any cheaper, unless, by some miracle, more oil is found, or we find another material that can replace oil in every aspect. What this means is that everything will become more expensive, and the economy, similar to that during the oil-scare dealy in the 1970s, will take a plummet, but this time, it will be world wide, and even bigger of a fall. The fall itself, might be so big infact, that the US, and industrialized society, including the EU, UK, China, and etc, will not be able to recover from it(once again, according to scientists).

If you think $2 is expensive for gas, imagine a world where $8 is the lowest it will go. Everything you have will become more expensive. Foods even, will be affected, due to the fact that most modern foods are treated with pesticides(which is made using oils). Eventually, food will become so expensive, that the middle class, will not be able to afford it, and the poor, will even suffer more.

Is there a solution to it? Maybe, but nobody knows of a good replace for oil as is. The overall problem is the fact that anything and everything will become so incredibly expensive, that people will no longer be able to afford the things they afford now. Also, energy will become scarce overall, and power outtages, will be common as well. The only thing that could save us, is changing around everything, to not depend on oil anymore.

That is peak-oil, and the world after.

other sources include
www.peakoil.com
www.peakoil.org
www.peakoil.net

and alot of places on google you can find, if you search up "Peak-Oil".

Post comments, questions, concerns, 'debates', and please, don't turn it into a flamewar...

Hype and hysteria my friend.

The Peak Oil's strongest believeers predicate their arguments on two things:
1. The business and world government are involved in a global conspiracy to loot the Earth and leave a smoking shell for our children and
2. The humankind is too stupid to survive a small bump in manufacturing processes

First off, most of the doomsday predictions are made using oil reserve estimates from twenty years ago. We are continually finding new reserves, and we are not nearly out of oil. They also assume that we'll just up and die once the easy oil has been harvested. That's just ludicrous.

When oil prices reach the point that it is cost-effective to utilize another energy source then we will use it. Look at coal: people were absolutely CERTAIN we would run out and be plunged into the dark ages. Notice that didn't happen. Why? Because oil technology was refined to the point where it was more cost-effective to utilize petroleum products. Once we reach that point, we will use alternate fuel sources.

The hydrogen fuel cell is very nearly ready for market release. We already have hybrid cars on the market, and when the energy crunch starts coming, the auto industries will pour billions into perfecting alternate fuel sources. Hell, if it gets down to it we'll just switch back to diesel engines running on bacon grease.

Hypists also ignore such technologies as thermal depolymerization which reduce fully renewable waste material into energy, water, and light petroleum at a marginal monetary profit.

To put it simply, the big evil corporations have a very vested interest in making sure that humanity survives intact, and whether you like them or not, you have to admit that the market has always come through when we needed it.

Hype and hysteria my friend.
The problem may not be as severe as some make it out to be (and I say may, because I'm certainly not sure it isn't), but oil is not going to last forever, and there is no serious attempt being made right now to find a replacement for it.

Hype and hysteria, but if it was hype, then why haven't I seen it on CNN. Or why has it not been spoken about before by any of the 2 presidential candidates in the US? Also, why would top scientists, including Bush's energy consultant, agree on it?

Jesus Christ learn to use commas!

And be more concerned about the effect the neocon war in iraq and the economic ascent of china are having on gas prices *today* and the ill effects of these prices on our economy.

Those are things that can be changed, there is no use hyping up the fact that at some point in the planet's future we may run out of oil. At some point the sun will blow up too, nothing you can do about it.

Everyone needs to learn how to grow vegetables and ride bikes. That will take care of two of the immediate problems. And if they are "hydrocarbons"... shouldn't it be possible to instigate a chemical reaction to form more of them?

Hype and hysteria, but if it was hype, then why haven't I seen it on CNN. Or why has it not been spoken about before by any of the 2 presidential candidates in the US? Also, why would top scientists, including Bush's energy consultant, agree on it?

Because CNN realizes it's a load of bullshit, and just because a scientist says so doesn't make it factual. Thirty years ago top scientists were saying the oil was going to run out in 20 years, and hey look: we have more oil than we ever have had before. Why? because our methods of locating it have improved.

[...] "hydrocarbons"... shouldn't it be possible to instigate a chemical reaction to form more of them?

Too expensive compared to how much they actually get. And as for finding more. Most places that more oil is located, are actively in civil war or dangerous. Anyhow, I have said my points, now the rest of you can talk amongst it yourselves.

Everyone needs to learn how to grow vegetables and ride bikes. That will take care of two of the immediate problems. And if they are "hydrocarbons"... shouldn't it be possible to instigate a chemical reaction to form more of them?


That chemical reaction would have to be endothermic, meaning it requires energy to produce the products. The beauty of hydrocarbons is the amount of energy released that was stored in the bonds, and this much must be put back in to reform the bonds broken. This fact plus the idea of entropy makes the formation of hydrocarbons as fuels quite an inefficient process.


I actually think nuclear reactions would be very beneficial if research, money and time went into it. The problem is that nuclear power has gotten bad rap from such incidents at Chernobal (SP) and Three Mile Island. The problems of handing nuclear waste raise questions, but I'd prefer to have nuclear radiation buried deep in the earth's crust than to have the pollution of hydrocarbon reactions in the air all the time.
Nuclear fusion/fission can be really powerful and efficient if handled right. The best part is that Hydrogen, such an abudant element, can be used either by fission or by fusion. Right now fusion reactions are not really advantageous because the means of containing them is costly.
Still, the fears of meltdown or terrorist attacks on such plants are very real. It's still a two-edged sword.

That chemical reaction would have to be endothermic, meaning it requires energy to produce the products. The beauty of hydrocarbons is the amount of energy released that was stored in the bonds, and this much must be put back in to reform the bonds broken. This fact plus the idea of entropy makes the formation of hydrocarbons as fuels quite an inefficient process.

With thermal depolymerization, nuclear power, and the long-awaited fusion power that will hopefully see fruition within the next 60 years, we might end up doing this to produce more oil for certain products that require it, like heavy plastics. We'll improve the process I'm sure, but an uneven energy expenditure might eventually be considered worthwhile for petroleum if we're running out at the source.

With thermal depolymerization, nuclear power, and the long-awaited fusion power that will hopefully see fruition within the next 60 years, we might end up doing this to produce more oil for certain products that require it, like heavy plastics. We'll improve the process I'm sure, but an uneven energy expenditure might eventually be considered worthwhile for petroleum if we're running out at the source.

Yeah we'll need petroleum for such things as polyester and the like, in which case the reformation of hydrocarbons is necessary, but just to form it to use it as a fuel is rather impractical.

Yeah we'll need petroleum for such things as polyester and the like, in which case the reformation of hydrocarbons is necessary, but just to form it to use it as a fuel is rather impractical.

We won't need it for fuel. I am going to invent an engine that runs on pixie dust and daydreams.

The problem may not be as severe as some make it out to be (and I say may, because I'm certainly not sure it isn't), but oil is not going to last forever, and there is no serious attempt being made right now to find a replacement for it.


Hydrogen power and electric power generated by nuclear plants is the solution for it.

It is a looooong term problem and there is plenty of time to find a looooong term solution.

It is lunacy to think that the companies which make fortunes from oil today will not devise means to make fortunes from its eventual replacement.
When the big energy corporations and their government agents start to devote public money to research in earnest of non-oil energy, then you can take seriously claims about 'peak oil.'

Peak oil is a serious problem, we don't only need oil for fuel but for many chemical products. But at the same time, I believe in the ingenuity of humankind. Andreas Eschbach (a german author) wrote: "The thing, men are really good at is reducing costs!" So when costs are rising, people will find another way. But despite my (unfounded, untypical, but present) optimism, I think that peak oil IS an important topic and that we should try our best not to waste oil and energy (to delay the end) and at the same time rise the prices (to encourage the industry to search alternatives). I shock people who moan when fuel prices rose again by a ssarcastic 'ought to be higher!', because when fuel does cost 5 ? per litre, people WILL find cheaper ways to get around.