NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe we can agree on one central issue - perhaps two.

1) Oil is finite, and will peak at some point in the near future.

2) The present American lifestyle depends upon using a great deal of energy.

Now it may well be that we should - or even must - transition to using less energy. Doing so rapidly will result in a great deal of economic pain to the U.S. and its citizens, perhaps including the destruction of the existing culture. A slower adaptation will result (IMO) in less pain, and will perhaps allow us to keep many of the conveniences and amenities we're so fond of. At the least, we'll keep them longer.

Frankly, I prefer that path. I believe most Americans do. The use of military force to obtain resources and to forestall economic disaster is nothing unusual - its been occuring for thousands of years.

Will there be a cost in blood and treasure? Sure. Is it possible that I or other civilians will die in the process? Again, sure. I've met and talked with some of the badly injured vets from this particular war and they support our actions over there. They know that, whatever the politicians may say, we're fighting for our cultural survival. The details are beside the point.

I am aware that my opinion will be unpopular. I mean no offense. But I wonder - again, with all due respect - whether you and others have really considered the impact of losing a substantial supply of oil.

This morning, I went to a nondescript little cafe and had two tacos; one was bacon and egg. One was potatoe and egg. I also had some hot sauce on the tacos. And coffee. And ice water.

Now, suppose that oil gets really expensive. The simple breakfast I mention above won't be available, will it? The bacon, the potatoes, the flour for the tortillas require transport - and that may not work when gasoline hits $7 per gallon. The coffee will be out of the question. Depending on the natural gas situation, even the ice in the ice water might not be available.

You may well discount the significance of my breakfast. But keep in mind that the employees and owner of the restaurant need sales if they are to remain in business.

The great depression had an imputed unemployment rate of 25%; are we prepared for the same, or worse?

Cooperation will not suffice. Survival is at stake. So while I would not quip "bring it on", and do not advocate war lightly, I do believe that we must secure the oil supply. In doing so, I advocate the lowest cost to the U.S. That may imply a greater cost to others who are not citizens or allies of the U.S. So be it. They will, no doubt, have a symmetric attitude. Again, so be it - for this is about survival.

I blame the gas companies. Most likely when a hydrogen powered car (or similar) DOES come out they will sue whoever makes it for every penny theyve got, nab the car and figure out some way to charge $50 per cubic foot of hydrogen.
Other than that, Americans are FAR too lazy to go without mass transport for more than a year or so. Im sure we can think of something to replace the good 'ol internal combustion.

I wonder - again, with all due respect - whether you and others have really considered the impact of losing a substantial supply of oil.I wonder whether you have really considered the impact of the coming oil crisis. We are told that we have 50 years of oil left in the world, but that is misleading. Oil is expected to peak in two or three years' time, and within five years, we can expect to see serious damage done to the economy. To continue to pretend that the crisis isn't coming because there is plenty of oil left in other countries that we can steal simply isn't an option. You would merely be delaying the inevitable, and not by much.

I accept your argument that this policy would be more justifiable if it helped to ease us into a withdrawal from our reliance of oil, but we all know that the US government will simply see these new oil supplies as having solved the problem, as long as they keep invading. They have no intention of turning over to alternative energy sources, because their power comes from the oil companies, who would lose money and power if they did. All this "blood for oil" policy is intended to do is to cripple the rest of the world so that the US still sits on top when the apocalypse comes.

Because if they don't do so, then they are going to be at the bottom. The US is more reliant on oil than any other Western nation, and because they've been borrowing so much money and spending so much on their military, their economy is going to be significantly more damaged by the Peak Oil than those in, say, Europe or Australasia. The only alternatives are to try and remove their own reliance on oil - which would mean sacrificing the oil companies who pay their wages and, let's face it, dictate their policies - and lessen their national debt - which would of course mean sacrificing some of their military superiority. As these are unacceptable consequences, all they can do is try and make sure the rest of the world goes under first.

Actually, I blame Reagan and the Congress in 1981 and 1982 for dismantling the alternative energy programs that Carter started. A number of experts think we could have been completely independent of foreign oil by now.

But while I like Reagan, and while I think Carter was a flake as a president, I think it's a damn shame that Carter's best idea was ransacked by an otherwise fairly decent president(Reagan)

Why do you think the US went to war with Iraq eh? To control the oil there, Iraqi oil has been coming out of those boreholes under its OWN pressure for over 72 years! with the monoply on the world oil market (thanks to the persuasive poweres of Halleburton's CEO Dick Cheyne) the US will get hugh return befor the oil crisis really sets in, by this time with the amount of money gained through massive prices set by the US they would have invented an alternative and monopolise that aswell

I think it's a damn shame that Carter's best idea was ransacked by an otherwise fairly decent president(Reagan)Carter seemed to me (as a non-American) to be a President with a lot of good ideas but no real administrative ability. Would you say that's a fair comment?

Why do you think the US went to war with Iraq eh? To control the oil there, Iraqi oil has been coming out of those boreholes under its OWN pressure for over 72 years! with the monoply on the world oil market (thanks to the persuasive poweres of Halleburton's CEO Dick Cheyne) the US will get hugh return befor the oil crisis really sets in, by this time with the amount of money gained through massive prices set by the US they would have invented an alternative and monopolise that aswellYou really think they're going to manage to do all that AND clear their national debt in the next five years? Good luck to 'em.

Other than that, Americans are FAR too lazy to go without mass transport for more than a year or so. Im sure we can think of something to replace the good 'ol internal combustion.
When I go to college I'm not even using a car - I'm gonna take the bus everywhere or attach some panniers to my bike

I agree with the original poster. Cause it will result in an even more widespread hatred of the US and it's inhabitants!!!! Which is always a good thing. Go for it. Iran has oil. Go quikly and get it.

Securing oil supply with the military is not very oil-effective either, considering how much oil is needed simply to keep said military functional. Consider all the ships and supplies and trucks they need. Not to mention the actual warfighting machines themselves. Not to mention the factories which need oil to produce said machines and supplies.

In other words, I agree that going to other countries to steal their oil is only a delay... if that.

Fair points all, i just really DONT like the Bush administration and i dont think he reflects kindly towrds you americans (if there is actually an american here) but still how much oil is used to be secured by the milatary would you say and how much is left in "them thar hills" so to speak that they just nabbed of saddham, the reason was that he was going to piss of the US beacause he would have the oil monoply and drive prices up, as the US is so dependednt on oil for daily life, there economy would possibly die and america would i suppose fall or adapt

I completly agree. Now, I'm going to make a little prediction, if you feel it is irrelavent and cluttering your thread, please do not hesistate to tell me too fuck off.

I feel that enventually, once the oil runs out completly,(there will have been tons of other things happening, but I just don't have the energy to make plausible predictions for those) there would be massive food rioting, looting, and the police and army would probably join in. The united states(and consequently, Canada*sniffle*) would be plunged into anarchy. In cities, eventually, people would organize themselves into loose gangs, controlling sectors of cities, fighting each other. The warlords would eventually tax the residents, essentially stealing what they had, and food shortages in the cities would become devastating.

In the countryside and small towns, there would be immediate fighting, and eventually towns would be taken over by a single warlord, who would try to control the sourounding farms, competing with the other warlords. Some would likely be ruled by religious zealots, playing on the faith of the townspeople.

Parties of people fleeing the cities would eventually come and raid the farms countrolled by the leaders of the smaller towns, and then run back into the wilderness. This would become a recuring happening.

Fishing towns, like those in Newfoundland, would likely become extremly powerfull, as they would control a steady supply of food(of course, until they exausted it, but in the situation it is unlikely that they would think of that.)

That is my little prediction.


Hope it was not too rambling and stupid.

yes, if you think about it, it would be trully terrible.

Just think, you could no longer even make plastic!

Cooperation will not suffice. Survival is at stake.
survival is not in the stake.
survival is in the bread, in the milk, in the vegtables, in the clean water from the tap, in the clean environment.
the thing your cooperations take from the third world states. the things that hardly get by the childs you employ in less than dollar for a week to make your 200$ nike shoes. the rain forests you destroyed for more cash.

USA refused to every agreement that tried to less the harm to the environment or the human rights their cooperation do.they against every chance for less pollution in cars or factories.
don't talk on the oil. you're too lazies for help the world, but you're always there for another war on oil.
this is time you need to find another ways for energy.
there is so many that I don't know even from where to start. or search for better ways. you easily make good one.
but no you think only on yourself. enjoying from the oil you have when the crisis is coming.

the apocalypse will coming soon, and you don't had the solution to make with her!!! EAT AND DRINK BECAUSE TOMORROW YOU DAY!!!!!!!!*



*taked from ancient pompay, the days before the volcano.

I agree with the original poster. Cause it will result in an even more widespread hatred of the US and it's inhabitants!!!! Which is always a good thing. Go for it. Iran has oil. Go quikly and get it.

You watch Iran is going to be a problem in the next 10-20 years you'll see ;)

You watch Iran is going to be a problem in the next 10-20 years you'll see ;)
Yes. So they should pre-emptivly invade it now. Free the opressed oil fields.



And the people as well of course.

True Green Isreal, the americans have pulled out of EVERYTHING under Bush, The Kyoto agreement for example, what did bush come up with CARBON CREDITS!!! what a pissing joke so if they get screwed, they screw themselves

Yes Liberate Oppressed Iranian Oil Fields!! :d

Alexia:
Just think, you could no longer even make plastic!I have visions of a future where we mine old landfills for plastic...

I think it's telling that Bush has said that the War on Terror could go on as long as 50 years. Why 50 years? Because 50 years is the estimated time until oil has effectively run out*, so there'd be little point in continuing then, because who cares about a few terrorists when there's no oil to win?

* (Note: that is when it will run out, not when the shortage will become a problem. Demand is expected to outstrip Supply enough to destabilise the world economy by 2010-2012.)

Carter seemed to me (as a non-American) to be a President with a lot of good ideas but no real administrative ability. Would you say that's a fair comment?
I would.

All of the no-more-oil extremists and anti-American conspiracy theorists need to calm down. We won't reach peak oil in 3 years, and we probably won't run out in a while. The fact of the matter is, there remains huge untapped reserves all around the world that aren't figured in to most calculations, such as a lot in Siberia or the Prarie Provinces in Canada. If the demand is. high enough, technology will be developed to use these resources that are currently not being used. Oil will be around for a good time longer, not just a decade. Those who believe the US is bent on world conquest to get more oil are wrong, too. As Santa Barbara pointed out, there's a great deal of oil expenditure just going on now, as we have to supply our troops halfway across the world and constantly keep our planes and tanks running. In fact, the War on Iraq has seen oil prices go up by a lot, even if this is more of a result of things going on in Nigeria and Venezuela.

I have visions of a future where we mine old landfills for plastic...

I think it's telling that Bush has said that the War on Terror could go on as long as 50 years. Why 50 years? Because 50 years is the estimated time until oil has effectively run out*, so there'd be little point in continuing then, because who cares about a few terrorists when there's no oil to win?

* (Note: that is when it will run out, not when the shortage will become a problem. Demand is expected to outstrip Supply enough to destabilise the world economy by 2010-2012.)


how odd, there was a fiction novel in which they did just that.

It was called "The ear, the eye and the arm".

Great book.

We won't reach peak oil in 3 years, and we probably won't run out in a while.You underestimate the threat.

Have a read:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

It's coming. Maybe within two or three years, maybe not for another five, but there's not long to go at all.

You underestimate the threat.

Have a read:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

It's coming. Maybe within two or three years, maybe not for another five, but there's not long to go at all.
What qualifications does a law student have to be making such claims?

Research. Every underlined phrase is a link to a source. You might as well say "What right does a physics student have to study law?" Just because he/she has no qualification in (Oil Studies? Whatever it is you're expecting of somebody.) does not mean he/she is ignorant of it. How many people in this topic are qualified Peak Oil Studiers? I suspect none, and yet we still express opinions.

Research. Every underlined phrase is a link to a source. You might as well say "What right does a physics student have to study law?" Just because he/she has no qualification in (Oil Studies? Whatever it is you're expecting of somebody.) does not mean he/she is ignorant of it. How many people in this topic are qualified Peak Oil Studiers? I suspect none, and yet we still express opinions.
And its just that, opinions. I don't think anyone would cite a NS thread as fact for anything. The fact of the matter is his peak oil page was said to be updated "shortly" over a year ago...

Research. Every underlined phrase is a link to a source. You might as well say "What right does a physics student have to study law?" Just because he/she has no qualification in (Oil Studies? Whatever it is you're expecting of somebody.) does not mean he/she is ignorant of it. How many people in this topic are qualified Peak Oil Studiers? I suspect none, and yet we still express opinions.

Yeah but we're expressing opinions here on this forum, that guy is not. He wrote and others are referencing it in the same way that all media journalists reference some sort of "expert" panel. Why does he get to be an "expert" in that way? is what I think the objection was to.

Looking at his little blurb on peak oil, since his other page has mysteriously dissapeared for over a year, he seems to base his predictions on what someone (However qualified then) made five decades ago. The only links he provides here are to the initial forcaster's own website.

Yeah but we're expressing opinions here on this forum, that guy is not.No, he's not, he's stating facts on a website, along with supporting evidence. You need a qualification to do that now, do you?

I happen to have qualifications (beyond GCSE) only in Biology, Physics, Maths, and History, but I happen to think that I am knowledgeable in other areas as well. I'm sure you do also. You don't need a certificate to do your reading, and tell others what you've read.

To the original poster,

Your views are reasonable, even if they have some flaws. Basically the fact remains that there are just too many of us human beings on this planet competiting for ever scarcer resources. The argument then goes that while cooperation between nations of the world is a nice thought, it is just an exercise in futility and it would be better off if the US went its own way to ensure its own survival.

The decline of global energy supply, if true, is the greatest threat facing the world. What we face is nothing less than total economic collapse. You might say thats a worst case scenario, may it is, but it is possible if certain assumptions are true. Understanding the issue is critical. I dont have time to explain peak oil here, but the following sites would give and introduction to the subject. About Matt Savinar's site (www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net), he does make some insightful analysis, but his doomsday approach leaves most people hearing about peak oil for the first time with the feeling that he just another of those nutcase conspiracy theorists. Also the fact remains that he is a lawyer, not a geologist and is just presenting the work of others. For some original work on the subject go to

www.peakoil.net (Read Colin Campbell's newsletters, geologist and former employee of shell, predicts a peak in 2007 or so)

www.globalpublicmedia.com (Internet broadcasting station, several interviews with experts)

wolf.readinglitho.co.uk (A balanced moderate introduction to the subject for beginers)


Back to the original poster, I dont blame you at all for your views. I too have oscillated between so many points of view after hearing about peak oil. But understand the risks of your position. Firstly the middle east is on the other end of the earth as the USA. Even if you take over the entire region, hypothetically speaking, you would have a very difficult time transporting all the oil back to the United states, the insurgency in Iraq has shown how vulnerable oil infrastructure is to insurgent attacks. The hatred towards the USA would be tenfold in such a scenario and you can imagine the increased level of violence.

Also the rest of the world would not sit by idly and watch the USA take over the entire middle east while there own economies would crumble as they are cut off from their supplies of oil. It might be unthinkable the thought of any major nation taking on the might the United States, the consequences (global nuclear war) are unimaginable. But a few years ago it would have seemed unthinkable to imagine that the United States would embark on a mission to secure its oil by force. The United States is fighting a long way away from its borders and its military is dangerously overstreched. On the other hand the countries the US will eventually compete with for the Oil - Russia, China, France, Germany and India are geographically far closer the middle east.

Oil won't be the problem. We already have the means to use a renewable oil source- You have heard of Biodiesel? Using old cooking oil as fuel?
Filter it and it can be burned by any current diesel engine. Refine the cooking oil slightly and works even better. It won't be that terribly hard to switch, just a switch of mind set.
However, there is a terrible problem not being addressed. Water. Clean potable water. There isn't enough for the world and that is shrinking due to global warming. Desalintation of water is not cheap nor easy although many in science are working hard on it.
Water has been polluted across the world and is also extremely hard to clean up. There aren't easy answers to providing enough water.
There will be severe conflict in our life, but for water, not oil. I don't think it will be that soon, but it is brewing. Any war sooner, well, is pretty much the usual historical vanity and ego of humanity.

Some people are saying to rely on mass transport more, but it's not even a choice in more rural areas, such as the place I live, Missouri. I live in the suburbs of the third largest city in Missouri, and you would have to be a nutcase to say everyone had to ride a bike to town. Everyone is far to spread out to have a large bus system. US NEEDS oil to survive.

Well, I work in the Oil Industry (sort of) repairing Oil Equipment for a company in the Northeastern part of Oklahoma. Everyday I see the preverbial "Bleeding to Death" of the untapped (still in the ground) oil supply. More and more wells are being plugged or sold off to small-time operators.

The Oklahoma (and Texas) Oil Fields are being foresaken by corporate Oil Companies because, well, there's a precious few pockets left. So the scraps are left again, to small, often times mom'n'pop companies. This supplies some of the national demand for it, but it won't last long.

This may seem a diminutive post to the rest of you, but even on the national scale, the petroleum refiners are the end of the line when it comes to determining the price of gas, and even the supply of it. I may be one of the small-timers that I speak of, but even from my ground-level vantage point I can still see the end.

Things should be done to put a hold on our dwindling supplies. More fuel additives to create better mileage, the use of more - and better - synthetic oils. But this would only be a temporary solution, not the means to an end.

We do need to transition to a more stable, hopefully infinite fuel source.
In fact, we must. If you ask me, that would be so much better than threatening our country, and (more importantly, even) others, in the futile and temporary goal for more oil. If this means the end of my job, so be it. I can find another, or live off the land (I'm a hick, that comes easy).

I know I would much rather lose my job, and end up planting and hunting for my food, than to know that thousands have died for my right to pay upwards to 2.00 a gallon to fuel up my Beetle.

Call me a redneck or a hippy if you like, Lol.

All of the no-more-oil extremists and anti-American conspiracy theorists need to calm down.And what conspiracy would you be referring to?



Meanwhile, here's a paper done by a scientist who studies resource production and sustainability, including untapped oil fields and unmined coal. http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_section3.htm

Has anyone heard that we have other forms of energy? We can produce energy through nuclear fission. Done right, it is much safer than burning coal and oil. We can produce energy through combining hydrogen and oxygen into water! We currently obtain the hydrogen from burning fossil fuels, but we can use vegetable matter to get it! Or even better, use electricity from nuclear plants to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water (we can do that), and then use that! And hydrogen burns in a straight plume, making it overall safer than oil. God, we're f**kheads.

First a little detail:


Now, suppose that oil gets really expensive. The simple breakfast I mention above won't be available, will it? The bacon, the potatoes, the flour for the tortillas require transport - and that may not work when gasoline hits $7 per gallon. The coffee will be out of the question. Depending on the natural gas situation, even the ice in the ice water might not be available.

A calculation: In the Netherlands we pay about 1,3 euro for 1 litre of gasoline. One gallon is about 3.8 liter, at the moment 1 euro is about 1.3 dollar. That means we are paying almost 7 dollar per gallon in the Netherlands. So we are the living proof that things can work when gasoline is expensive. ;)

Cooperation will not suffice. Survival is at stake. So while I would not quip "bring it on", and do not advocate war lightly, I do believe that we must secure the oil supply. In doing so, I advocate the lowest cost to the U.S. That may imply a greater cost to others who are not citizens or allies of the U.S. So be it. They will, no doubt, have a symmetric attitude. Again, so be it - for this is about survival.

Would you be willing to accept the consequences of that? Namely: 1) To accept that in the end you are no more than a primitive being, who respects power, not justice? 2) That other states and peoples have every right to resist your attempts to secure oil? In that case you can't call the insurgents terrorists anymore, you must address them as freedom fighters. Your own army should then be called a true occupation force. In this situation other countries would have every right to attack the US when that would be in their interest.
Are you willing to accept that? I'm not, it's not the kind of world I'd like to live in.

Has anyone heard that we have other forms of energy? We can produce energy through nuclear fission. Done right, it is much safer than burning coal and oil. We can produce energy through combining hydrogen and oxygen into water! We currently obtain the hydrogen from burning fossil fuels, but we can use vegetable matter to get it! Or even better, use electricity from nuclear plants to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water (we can do that), and then use that! And hydrogen burns in a straight plume, making it overall safer than oil. God, we're f**kheads.
Ah. But those aren't cost effective yet.

Has anyone heard that we have other forms of energy? We can produce energy through nuclear fission. Done right, it is much safer than burning coal and oil. We can produce energy through combining hydrogen and oxygen into water! We currently obtain the hydrogen from burning fossil fuels, but we can use vegetable matter to get it! Or even better, use electricity from nuclear plants to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water (we can do that), and then use that! And hydrogen burns in a straight plume, making it overall safer than oil. God, we're f**kheads.There is still no long-term safe place to store the nuclear waste. Not Yucca Mountain, not WIPP, nowhere.

The amount of energy required to obtain plant-based fuel like ethanol exceeds the energy you get back by burning that fuel. So the "vegetable matter" is only useful when it's extracted from failed crops where oil has already been wasted

There is still no long-term safe place to store the nuclear waste. Not Yucca Mountain, not WIPP, nowhere.
You could store it in the White House. And I didn't know hydrogen even produced nuclear waste.

And I didn't know hydrogen even produced nuclear waste.I didn't know nuclear power plants used hydrogen as fuel

yes, if you think about it, it would be trully terrible.

Just think, you could no longer even make plastic!
They've begun to make plastic with soy oils.

There is still no long-term safe place to store the nuclear waste. Not Yucca Mountain, not WIPP, nowhere.

The amount of energy required to obtain plant-based fuel like ethanol exceeds the energy you get back by burning that fuel. So the "vegetable matter" is only useful when it's extracted from failed crops where oil has already been wasted
Actually there is a process that contains the wasted fuel in one area and dampens the radioactive emissions. It mixes glass with lead and the nuclear waste itself to form approx a meter in diameter spheres. If you were to encase those in lead and drop them over the deepest point of the marianas trench you'd have a temporary measure. Of course, continuing that beyond several hundred years would be a bad idea.

What's even worse, is our lack of efficiency in everything. We can easily make SUVs get over 100 MPG, but we don't. Why, it's all about the dollar. We have had over 100 years of research, better fuels, improved drivetrains and such, but many CARS don't achieve gas mileage that even the Model T could get on inferior fuel. The most efficient power source, nuclear power, is only around 37% efficient.

And what conspiracy would you be referring to?



Meanwhile, here's a paper done by a scientist who studies resource production and sustainability, including untapped oil fields and unmined coal. http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_section3.htm
The one where the US Government is taking over the world to get more oil. :rolleyes:

No, he's not, he's stating facts on a website, along with supporting evidence. You need a qualification to do that now, do you?

I happen to have qualifications (beyond GCSE) only in Biology, Physics, Maths, and History, but I happen to think that I am knowledgeable in other areas as well. I'm sure you do also. You don't need a certificate to do your reading, and tell others what you've read.
A 50-year old projection does not qualify, to myself at least, as a solid fact.

More efficient cars?

Crazy-talk, my friend, crazy talk!! Why do that when you can buy gas for $2 a gallon?! Why make cars more efficient when, we need bigger cars to carry our broods of screaming kids to school, to our 4 acre estates 5 miles from the center of town? This is ludicrous! We don't need efficiency, we need to open up the Alaska to get 6 months worth of oil to temporarily reduce costs! I don't get these unpatriotic foolish whelps who don't understand how we live outside of the city! We need our hummers to carry our families around! We don't need gas prices rising. We need investment in the family! As long as the prices stay low, my stocks will keep rising, then I can buy an even bigger car. Pretty girls like big cars!

I post here later.

Actually, that fifty year-old model was accurate in predicting when the US hit its production peak, and it would be completely accurate on the world peak if the oil crisis in the '70s hadn't happened, which barely delayed Peak Oil at all. It's coming, so get ready.

Actually, that fifty year-old model was accurate in predicting when the US hit its production peak, and it would be completely accurate on the world peak if the oil crisis in the '70s hadn't happened, which barely delayed Peak Oil at all. It's coming, so get ready.
Yes, it was accurate 20 years from its production in a country where more oil is unlikely to be found.

On the entire world, its a whole decade off, and to say that is only because of the 70's oil crisis is wrong. That would make sense if the oil was shut off totally for at least 9 years in the 70's - and thats assuming that oil consumption in the 70's per year is equal to that of the time period of 1995-2004, which it dosen't.

I believe we can agree on one central issue - perhaps two.

1) Oil is finite, and will peak at some point in the near future.

2) The present American lifestyle depends upon using a great deal of energy.

doubt, have a symmetric attitude. Again, so be it - for this is about survival.

You make the mistaken presumption that oil is the only source of energy. The US could follow the French example and generate 75% of our utility energy from atomic power. Or we could burn coal since we have 25% of the worlds coal deposits. Alcohol-ethanol, solar, wind, hydro electric and other sources are all available. You and your doomsday crowd will be very disappointed when the world of 'Mad Max' fails to materialize.

You make the mistaken presumption that oil is the only source of energy. The US could follow the French example and generate 75% of our utility energy from atomic power. Or we could burn coal since we have 25% of the worlds coal deposits. Alcohol-ethanol, solar, wind, hydro electric and other sources are all available. You and your doomsday crowd will be very disappointed when the world of 'Mad Max' fails to materialize.

I can't imagine anyone would be disappointed to see the end of the world as we know it; a world filled with violence, starvation, and stagnation.

Now, onto more serious matters.

Yes, generation of electrical power would persist, but the overall energy output would be significantly inferior, especially with regard to mobile transport. This will be most devastating for the agricultural sector, which will be necessary to support a still-expanding world population. Our agriculture is entirely dependent upon oil-fueled machinery. With a reduced mechanical capacity to create large bulk crops, the overall capacity to produce agricultural goods will likewise be reduced. This will necessarily reduce the "carrying capacity" of the earth for human life. With increased scarcity and increasing expense to transport goods. Increased scarcity translates directly into increased conflict.

Hey, you know what might be fun? A roleplay about life after the oil collaspe.

Maybe an Idea, no?

You make the mistaken presumption that oil is the only source of energy. The US could follow the French example and generate 75% of our utility energy from atomic power. Or we could burn coal since we have 25% of the worlds coal deposits. Alcohol-ethanol, solar, wind, hydro electric and other sources are all available. You and your doomsday crowd will be very disappointed when the world of 'Mad Max' fails to materialize.
You have failed to grasp one of the rudimentary features of energy systems, the difference between transportation and generation fuels. One can generate electricity with nuclear and wind, yes. But international commerce runs on oil.

Irrespective of precisely when the world oil production peak occurs (even the eternal optimists at the US EIA do not see it being pushed much beyond 2020), the point is that oil is a pre-requisite to global commerce, is geographically concentrated, is finite and depleting on a very short timescale, and whoever controls its production and distribution, is in a position to wield considerable political and economic influence. To any geostrategist, it most certainly is worth fighting a war over, whether people like to accept this fact or not. We will see energy resources play an increasingly important (and public) role in geopolitics.

I blame the gas companies. Most likely when a hydrogen powered car (or similar) DOES come out they will sue whoever makes it for every penny theyve got, nab the car and figure out some way to charge $50 per cubic foot of hydrogen.
Other than that, Americans are FAR too lazy to go without mass transport for more than a year or so. Im sure we can think of something to replace the good 'ol internal combustion.
Lol would like to see a showdown between Daimler and a oil company … (as far as I can tell they got the farthest along hydrogen … having driven it 4 k miles already in one trip … cross country)


Right now we got to work on distribution … I think things will come when someone learns how to efficiently distribute hydrogen (well less figure out more start to implement … I know I would look at buying one if I was sure I could fuel up about anywhere)

hehehe

What do you hold in this world, without the supply of oil we receive our whole world is nothing. Stop trying to act the greenpeace activists you think you all are and grow up. Zeppelin rules.

What do you hold in this world, without the supply of oil we receive our whole world is nothing. Stop trying to act the greenpeace activists you think you all are and grow up. Zeppelin rules.
\


there are reasons that people do not like you, you know.

What do you hold in this world, without the supply of oil we receive our whole world is nothing. Stop trying to act the greenpeace activists you think you all are and grow up. Zeppelin rules.
No without a supply of ENERGY … oil is just that … a way to power

Change the supply you still have the same effect ( wont argue on the have nothing because that really is proven false by the fact that people had things before oil was used)

You have failed to grasp one of the rudimentary features of energy systems, the difference between transportation and generation fuels. One can generate electricity with nuclear and wind, yes. But international commerce runs on oil.

Irrespective of precisely when the world oil production peak occurs (even the eternal optimists at the US EIA do not see it being pushed much beyond 2020), the point is that oil is a pre-requisite to global commerce, is geographically concentrated, is finite and depleting on a very short timescale, and whoever controls its production and distribution, is in a position to wield considerable political and economic influence. To any geostrategist, it most certainly is worth fighting a war over, whether people like to accept this fact or not. We will see energy resources play an increasingly important (and public) role in geopolitics.

Not to mention other resources like fresh water...

Given that oil companies have been buying up and registering patents for alternative forms of vehicle engines as well as spending a huge amount of money on research. I think they are quite likely to have replacements ready for when oil becomes unprofiatable to convert into petrol - which will happen before it runs out.

im sure, more than actually, the only reason we stillr ely on "fossil fuels" is because of corporate lobbying. we can make fake diamonds and we can make fuel for little toy cars out of powder and vinegar, why cant we make cars run on corn starch?

im sure, more than actually, the only reason we stillr ely on "fossil fuels" is because of corporate lobbying. we can make fake diamonds and we can make fuel for little toy cars out of powder and vinegar, why cant we make cars run on corn starch?
Currently whats stopping the whole thing taking off is the arguement between fuel producers/distributors (petrol companies) and vehicle manufacturer's over who should switch first. Car companies say they cannot make, for the sake of arguement, hydrogen fuelled cars until there are hydrogen pumps in garages and the fuel companies say they cannot invest in hydrogen pumps until there are cars to use it. Both are waiting in the hope that governments will step in and shoulder the switch over costs for them. The technology is only about 5-7 years away from being ready for a complete switch from petrol/diesel driven vehicles but corporate/political will is much further behind.

We need hash oil, not motor oil...!

Our agriculture is entirely dependent upon oil-fueled machinery. With a reduced mechanical capacity to create large bulk crops, the overall capacity to produce agricultural goods will likewise be reduced. This will necessarily reduce the "carrying capacity" of the earth for human life. With increased scarcity and increasing expense to transport goods. Increased scarcity translates directly into increased conflict.
You overestimate the role of machinery fuel in agriculture. You also presume that the same machinery cannot be modified to run on other fuels - nat. gas, ethanol, etc. You city-folk may not understand that an orchard does not need to be tilled every day, a field does not need to be harvested daily and livestock does not need to be moved by truck each week. An amazing amount of work is still manual.

But if you really would rather panic than research, be my guest.

You have failed to grasp one of the rudimentary features of energy systems, the difference between transportation and generation fuels. One can generate electricity with nuclear and wind, yes. But international commerce runs on oil.

Irrespective of precisely when the world oil production peak occurs (even the eternal optimists at the US EIA do not see it being pushed much beyond 2020), the point is that oil is a pre-requisite to global commerce, is geographically concentrated, is finite and depleting on a very short timescale, and whoever controls its production and distribution, is in a position to wield considerable political and economic influence. To any geostrategist, it most certainly is worth fighting a war over, whether people like to accept this fact or not. We will see energy resources play an increasingly important (and public) role in geopolitics.

Retail goods (different from commerce) are delivered using petroleum based motors now because petroleum fuels are the cheapest and easiest medium. It is not, however, the ONLY medium. As supply dwindles and the cost increases alternatives become more competitive and can displace the previous medium. Do you really need me to outline the alternatives or do you know how to google?

Oh, and predicting the 'peak' of oil supply is junk science. To measure a finite resource you have to know where it all is. Can you please tell me when gold mining will peak also?

One of my friends is currently working for Shell during his gap year before going to Cambridge University. His supervisor was on a project, working on an engine that would consume much, MUCH less petrol. And guess what? A fifteen year project lost its funding. All because of profits.

I completly agree. Now, I'm going to make a little prediction, if you feel it is irrelavent and cluttering your thread, please do not hesistate to tell me too fuck off.

I feel that enventually, once the oil runs out completly,(there will have been tons of other things happening, but I just don't have the energy to make plausible predictions for those) there would be massive food rioting, looting, and the police and army would probably join in. The united states(and consequently, Canada*sniffle*) would be plunged into anarchy. In cities, eventually, people would organize themselves into loose gangs, controlling sectors of cities, fighting each other. The warlords would eventually tax the residents, essentially stealing what they had, and food shortages in the cities would become devastating.

In the countryside and small towns, there would be immediate fighting, and eventually towns would be taken over by a single warlord, who would try to control the sourounding farms, competing with the other warlords. Some would likely be ruled by religious zealots, playing on the faith of the townspeople.

Parties of people fleeing the cities would eventually come and raid the farms countrolled by the leaders of the smaller towns, and then run back into the wilderness. This would become a recuring happening.

Fishing towns, like those in Newfoundland, would likely become extremly powerfull, as they would control a steady supply of food(of course, until they exausted it, but in the situation it is unlikely that they would think of that.)

That is my little prediction.


Hope it was not too rambling and stupid.



HAHAHHAH, oil isnt going to jsut suddenly run out, by the time it does we will come up with a different fuel, be it hydrogen or whatever.

And the oil isnt going to run out very soon either, for example alberta has nearly the same oil reserves as Saudi! Most of it is untouched...