NationStates Jolt Archive

It took a natural disaster and high demand to drive prices sky high in October. They are even higher, and there is little unused capacity to pump more. Yet this is having no effect on consumption habits. That suggests that prices will rise to reach equilibrium. It seems inevitable that prices will rise past $60/barrel. The question is at what price the economy will start to hurt at.

YEEE HAW you silly yankees keep buying those SUVs, we peops here in alberta are getting rich off your wastefull habits!! :p

It hinders the economy at any price...

YEEE HAW you silly yankees keep buying those SUVs, we peops here in alberta are getting rich off your wastefull habits!! :p
Well, once it starts hurting the economy, it will hurt even oil produucers, as manufacturing, food, and commodity costs will skyrocket.

Oil's gonna go as high as OPEC wants, so I voted $90+.

I think oil prices will not go up that much now. Even the U.S. gas guzzling public has a point were they will refuse to pay any more for gas.

Oil's gonna go as high as OPEC wants, so I voted $90+.
But OPEC already thinks its too high. They don't want prices so high that it discourages consumption. However, they control only about a third of current production. The rest is divided among other states, with Russia and the US chief among them.

Chinas been buying cars like crazy, and if everyfamily had a car in china the oil well will run a little low, while prices go sky high.

bump

But OPEC already thinks its too high. They don't want prices so high that it discourages consumption. However, they control only about a third of current production. The rest is divided among other states, with Russia and the US chief among them.

I'd say OPEC better get what they can for it, while they can...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

Looks like this whole subject will become MOOT in the not-too-distant future!

The higher it goes, the sooner we switch. It's all a matter of economics...

Regards,
Gaar

bump

With Bush as president, extremely high.

With Bush as president, extremely high.
Why?

Constsnat need for war fundng, teh destructiuon of oil in Iraq...etc

Final price of oil ---> One first born child per gallon :(

Final price of oil ---> One first born child per gallon :(
AHHHHH

Constsnat need for war fundng, teh destructiuon of oil in Iraq...etc
I do love irrationality.

The price of oil won't matter once there isn't any left. That will take approximately 40 years though. If they figure out new ways of pumping oil out of the ground they could extend that, but theres still a limit.

The price of oil won't matter once there isn't any left. That will take approximately 40 years though. If they figure out new ways of pumping oil out of the ground they could extend that, but theres still a limit.
I hope it runs out quicker. We need more solar power. Effective, and clean.

They're working right now on a secret technique to extract crude oil from baby seals, humpback whales and extremely overweight children. The result is still a little chunky but they're getting closer everyday. So courage people...we're not licked yet!

I'd say OPEC better get what they can for it, while they can...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

Looks like this whole subject will become MOOT in the not-too-distant future!

The higher it goes, the sooner we switch. It's all a matter of economics...

Regards,
Gaar

Interesting... but oil isn't the way to go. We need more research into alternative energy sources.

http://www.iter.org

go fusion!

I hope it runs out quicker. We need more solar power. Effective, and clean.

Too bad solar power is slightly ineffecient. They're working on that though..

I think oil prices will not go up that much now. Even the U.S. gas guzzling public has a point were they will refuse to pay any more for gas.

do the chinese ? cause they are the ones sucking up all the supply..

do the chinese ? cause they are the ones sucking up all the supply..
What? We are sucking it all up.

do the chinese ? cause they are the ones sucking up all the supply..

Right on Invidentia...It's not more oil that we need or better fuel efficiency. Like almost every other problem...this one can be solved by having fewer chinese! It's about time someone made some sense on here!

Too bad solar power is slightly ineffecient. They're working on that though..
True...

Wind power isn't good. it alters teh weather.

What? We are sucking it all up.
But China's consumption is growing at an exponetential rate.

But China's consumption is growing at an exponetential rate.
But we are still #1

As we are all on the alternative energy debate, I might as well add in my two cents.
There are several promissing new technologies and concepts. However, it took several decades for oil to become as widespread as it is. That is why I feel that a natural gas economy will take over. It is expected to overtake oil as the world's favorite energy source by 2025, and why wouldn't it? It is clean, relatively abundant, and with the innovations in transport, it can be shipped anywhere on the planet.
That being said, several other solutions will come along. Solar power is popular in the American Southwest, and will become increasingly so for imbedded applications. Wind power is gaining momentum. And as Dow Chemical is discovering, fuel cells are great for buildings. It is now supplying 20% of the plant's energy needs of about 1000MW. There are many solutions out there.
And btw, I think that nuclear power is great if the public lets it flourish. It is pretty safe, extremely clean, and very abundant. France and Japan have the world's best nuclear power systems, and other countries need to build off that success.

But we are still #1
Of course. But growth in demand has grown only marginally in the past ten years. China's demand has soared. They were a net exporter of oil in 1993, but now are the second biggest oil importer.

In the UK today the price per litre is 85p thats £3.82 per gallon or $7.34

Now you know why we like smaller, more efficient cars.

The papers and Government are talking of prices reaching £1 per litre THIS YEAR ($8.65 per gallon)

In the UK today the price per litre is 85p thats £3.82 per gallon or $7.34

Now you know why we like smaller, more efficient cars.

The papers and Government are talking of prices reaching £1 per litre THIS YEAR ($8.65 per gallon)
What I don't like, however, is that the price is artificially high. The British government taxes the hell out of oil, making petrol prices higher, and as you said, less energy consumption by Brits. Now has it ever occured to them that oil prices would also rise if the Brits weren't taxed on petrol as much? Does it cross their brains that it might actually accelarate the R&D of something else? Apparantly not. But hey, that's what you get with that eco-fascist on 10 Downing Street. Vote him out this May, please.

the sky is the limit for the price but its questionable when the economy will start to hurt.

As we are all on the alternative energy debate, I might as well add in my two cents.
There are several promissing new technologies and concepts. However, it took several decades for oil to become as widespread as it is. That is why I feel that a natural gas economy will take over. It is expected to overtake oil as the world's favorite energy source by 2025, and why wouldn't it? It is clean, relatively abundant, and with the innovations in transport, it can be shipped anywhere on the planet.
That being said, several other solutions will come along. Solar power is popular in the American Southwest, and will become increasingly so for imbedded applications. Wind power is gaining momentum. And as Dow Chemical is discovering, fuel cells are great for buildings. It is now supplying 20% of the plant's energy needs of about 1000MW. There are many solutions out there.
And btw, I think that nuclear power is great if the public lets it flourish. It is pretty safe, extremely clean, and very abundant. France and Japan have the world's best nuclear power systems, and other countries need to build off that success.

Yeah...Sure...Nuclear power is clean... Do you know how much radioactive waste that produces??

Yeah...Sure...Nuclear power is clean... Do you know how much radioactive waste that produces??
That can be safely stored. In the US, right now, nuclear waste is stored in warehouses or in storage sites only a few thousand feet underground. The safest storage site in Carlsbad, NM is almost ready to be sealed. However, a new and big nuclear waste storage site deep in Yucca Mountain, NV. It will fill after only 300 years, and will store waste from other countries. It has cleared all political hurdles, and construction is happening right now. Besides, there are at least a couple of sites in the American west that can take nuclear wastes in large quantities.

There are also several designs, btw, of second generation nuclear reactors. They promise to be "meltdown free" (though I don't quite by that) and can generate more power from fissible materials than can first generation reactors. Hopefully, this will also accelarate research into breeder reactors. Breeders promise a nearly infinite supply of uranium by making uranium ores into fissible uranium, or even plutonium. The ore is far more plentiful than the uranium itself, so this is promising.
Sadly, breeders have run into trouble. They can't be cooled by water, so sodium gas is used, a flammable substance. A couple of times, incidents involving breeders almost melt down, making Chernobyl look like a birthday party. But as of 1999, the French were doing experiments with the Super Phenix reactor, which created 14% more uranium than was injected. While it was too expensive to maintain, it was by far the most successful commercial breeder ever.

That can be safely stored. In the US, right now, nuclear waste is stored in warehouses or in storage sites only a few thousand feet underground. The safest storage site in Carlsbad, NM is almost ready to be sealed. However, a new and big nuclear waste storage site deep in Yucca Mountain, NV. It will fill after only 300 years, and will store waste from other countries.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why are we storing nuclear waste for other countries? We've got enough problems from our own citizens griping about nuclear waste. Let's store our own nuclear waste, and let them deal with their own problems. Cripes, buy a plot in some 3rd world country and dump it there. Nobody will know the difference.

$60 +

In the future I see hydrogen being a major fuel. As we learn more and make egines more efficient the superiorties of oil won't seem worth the money. Tital power I see as a good means of generating electricity. Ocean currents are very predictable, unlike wind and sun. In the future, instead of oil rigs we'll have tital rigs, each holding a crew that maintains a field of submerged dynamos in a magor ocean current.
P.S. Although we technically have about forty years worth of oil left, that figure is based only on current consumption, and don't forget that near the end the price will be so high due to supply and demand that as a fuel source it will be redundant. I'd say, given recent advancements, it will be around 2025 when oil becomes an unviable base for the world economy.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why are we storing nuclear waste for other countries? We've got enough problems from our own citizens griping about nuclear waste. Let's store our own nuclear waste, and let them deal with their own problems. Cripes, buy a plot in some 3rd world country and dump it there. Nobody will know the difference.
As I've said, Yucca Mountain will be very big. It can store all the nuclear waste in storage on the East Coast, where most of the nuclear power plants are. In addition, it can store all nuclear waste in the US that is generated for the next 300 years. 300 years is an extremely long way off, and they will have another solution by then. So doesn't it make sense to take it for some other countries?
And btw, if nuclear waste really becomes a problem, it can always be reprocessed. France and Japan have beautiful infrastructures for reprocessing nuclear waste. There will be the security question, of course, but the technology to secure wastes in transport already exists.

$60 +
Well, it's almost there. But at that level, do you think that many people will seriously change their driving habits?

Chinas been buying cars like crazy, and if everyfamily had a car in china the oil well will run a little low, while prices go sky high.
Someone better regulate their emissions.

Someone better regulate their emissions.

Who? The Magical Emissions Fairy?

Our best bet would be fusion power... safe, efficient, produces lots of energy, but not nessecarily cheap.

Someone better regulate their emissions.
Beijing has. Their emissions standards are now more stringent than the US. I think they are bastaards for doing that, but oh well. I guess that means that their red streak has never truely left.

We can probably expect very high oil prices this year. Demand is increasing rapidly and experts do not believe that supply will be able to keep up in 2005. Things might improve in time, but I dont think they will. Depletion of our existing reserves, as per Hubbert's peak oil theory coulld be a very big problem some years from now.

www.peakoil.com

The sooner we get off oil the better. Maybe high prices are what we need to reduce demand and encourage research in alternate fuels.

As I've said, Yucca Mountain will be very big. It can store all the nuclear waste in storage on the East Coast, where most of the nuclear power plants are. In addition, it can store all nuclear waste in the US that is generated for the next 300 years. 300 years is an extremely long way off, and they will have another solution by then. So doesn't it make sense to take it for some other countries?
And btw, if nuclear waste really becomes a problem, it can always be reprocessed. France and Japan have beautiful infrastructures for reprocessing nuclear waste. There will be the security question, of course, but the technology to secure wastes in transport already exists.
Really. Can you insure that it will stay stable for the next 100,00 years? Can you insure that your 'safe' storage facility won't start releasing nuclear waste into the ground water or into the air after 200,000 years?

No?

Not a good solution then.

Really. Can you insure that it will stay stable for the next 100,00 years? Can you insure that your 'safe' storage facility won't start releasing nuclear waste into the ground water or into the air after 200,000 years?

No?

Not a good solution then.
No one knows what will happen 200,000 years from now. Our great-grandkids' great-grandkids will be long dead by then. There is plenty of time for a solution to be developed.
Luckily, EPA standards say that waste should be contained only about 10,000 years. Barring some massive event, that should happen.

In the future I see hydrogen being a major fuel. As we learn more and make egines more efficient the superiorties of oil won't seem worth the money. Tital power I see as a good means of generating electricity. Ocean currents are very predictable, unlike wind and sun. In the future, instead of oil rigs we'll have tital rigs, each holding a crew that maintains a field of submerged dynamos in a magor ocean current.
P.S. Although we technically have about forty years worth of oil left, that figure is based only on current consumption, and don't forget that near the end the price will be so high due to supply and demand that as a fuel source it will be redundant. I'd say, given recent advancements, it will be around 2025 when oil becomes an unviable base for the world economy.

Its true consumption is increasing.. but even more so technology is sky rocketing in response to increase efficency and effictiveness of engins and fuel usage.. dont forget 20 years ago they said we only had 50 years left.

No one knows what will happen 200,000 years from now. Our great-grandkids' great-grandkids will be long dead by then. There is plenty of time for a solution to be developed.
Luckily, EPA standards say that waste should be contained only about 10,000 years. Barring some massive event, that should happen.

just because we dont see it today doesn't mean it dosn't exist.. just as this fellow says no one knows what will happen in 200,000 years. Today Greens cry to have wind turbines used on a mass scale to replace oil and coal energy sources. However, we dont know what long term effects they have on wind movements and weath effects.. in 200,000 years we might find wind turbines to be dramatically detremental to weather patterns which would make necular raidation comming from the ground feel like a sunny spring day.

Seeing the short history of humans and the advancements we've made for all we know in 200,000 years humans will be using or maybe even dependent on the radiation comming up from the ground turning it into renewable clean efficent energy... who knows what will happen in 200,000 years.. not everything is negative

just because we dont see it today doesn't mean it dosn't exist.. just as this fellow says no one knows what will happen in 200,000 years. Today Greens cry to have wind turbines used on a mass scale to replace oil and coal energy sources. However, we dont know what long term effects they have on wind movements and weath effects.. in 200,000 years we might find wind turbines to be dramatically detremental to weather patterns which would make necular raidation comming from the ground feel like a sunny spring day.
Like I said, however, 200,000 years is a long way off. 200,000 years ago, fire was unknown to humans. Look at how far we have come.

Now, guys, I've been hearing something about solid oxydized fuels as "the fuel of the future" (whatever the hell that means). Does anyone know what it is?

No one knows what will happen 200,000 years from now. Our great-grandkids' great-grandkids will be long dead by then. There is plenty of time for a solution to be developed.
Luckily, EPA standards say that waste should be contained only about 10,000 years. Barring some massive event, that should happen.
200,000 is an exaggeration. I'd be surprised if that thing held up for more then 200 years, especially at the rate that most of the 'guarantees' the government has given us/have been made over the years tend to fall apart rather quickly.

200,000 is an exaggeration. I'd be surprised if that thing held up for more then 200 years, especially at the rate that most of the 'guarantees' the government has given us/have been made over the years tend to fall apart rather quickly.
The gurantee is as solid as the granite mountain it is in. It is a site that stretches thousands of feet below the mountain, costs $60 billion, and is in a very remote, virtually uninhabitable area of Nevada in case something happens. Far worse radiation (such as that from nuclear tests) lingers in Nevada, and the government is going to excessive lengths to make sure that it doesn't happen again. On top of that, it is far better than the alternatives: either storing waste in cooling pools with only so much space, or in containers near populated areas.
BTW, do you live in Nevada?
Edit:
200,000 years is hardly an exaggeration. Sometime around then, the facility will erode. In about 500,000 years, in the absence of tectonic uplift, the mountain will start to seriously erode, exposing the wastes that is very radioactive by now. Sadly, it takes about a million years for a half-life.

Our best bet would be fusion power... safe, efficient, produces lots of energy, but not nessecarily cheap.

It's a good idea, but as of yet, no one has (to my knowledge) created even a minute fusion reaction. As soon as they can create sustained, controlled fusion reactions at a viable cost, then I'll be all for it.

It's a good idea, but as of yet, no one has (to my knowledge) created even a minute fusion reaction. As soon as they can create sustained, controlled fusion reactions at a viable cost, then I'll be all for it.
They can. In fact, they've been doing it for over half a century. It's called hydrogen bombs :).
But really, I think that hydrogen bombs are a work of art. They are beautiful in their fire, and mysterious in their massive destruction. It makes me sad to think that so much of the world condemns nuclear tests. They are beautiful.
But, I digress.

The gurantee is as solid as the granite mountain it is in. It is a site that stretches thousands of feet below the mountain, costs $60 billion, and is in a very remote, virtually uninhabitable area of Nevada in case something happens. Far worse radiation (such as that from nuclear tests) lingers in Nevada, and the government is going to excessive lengths to make sure that it doesn't happen again. On top of that, it is far better than the alternatives: either storing waste in cooling pools with only so much space, or in containers near populated areas.
BTW, do you live in Nevada?
Edit:
200,000 years is hardly an exaggeration. Sometime around then, the facility will erode. In about 500,000 years, in the absence of tectonic uplift, the mountain will start to seriously erode, exposing the wastes that is very radioactive by now. Sadly, it takes about a million years for a half-life.
Our own pools are falling apart after less then 30-40 years of use (eg waste barrels leaking, coolment malfunctions), and we should expect that one would last for well over 3000 times that?

Oh, and if they leak, who cares, right? It's deep below the rock?

Well, interesting note to this: During the Chernobyl nuclear accident, and directly after that, some of the nuclear material from the core leaked down into the area directly below the now ruined containment vessel, creating such a large possibility that the area under it might start a chain reaction that the Russians spent countless lives to drill a hole into the area under the core and flood it with coolent. Imagine if we miss this, and we have a nuclear reactor going underground...

Our own pools are falling apart after less then 30-40 years of use (eg waste barrels leaking, coolment malfunctions), and we should expect that one would last for well over 3000 times that?

Oh, and if they leak, who cares, right? It's deep below the rock?

Well, interesting note to this: During the Chernobyl nuclear accident, and directly after that, some of the nuclear material from the core leaked down into the area directly below the now ruined containment vessel, creating such a large possibility that the area under it might start a chain reaction that the Russians spent countless lives to drill a hole into the area under the core and flood it with coolent. Imagine if we miss this, and we have a nuclear reactor going underground...
Chernobyl was unique in the fact that much of the leaked fuel was not spent, but already used. In fact, as several Soviet reactors were used to help in weapons production, weapons-grade material may have leaked down there. This will store mostly spent fuel. It is far less dangerous than other fuels, and it is not fissible anymore. It is radioactive, and there is a very big difference.

Chernobyl was unique in the fact that much of the leaked fuel was not spent, but already used. In fact, as several Soviet reactors were used to help in weapons production, weapons-grade material may have leaked down there. This will store mostly spent fuel. It is far less dangerous than other fuels, and it is not fissible anymore. It is radioactive, and there is a very big difference.
High grade radioactive material is still highly dangerious, and subject to reaching a critical mass, especially if we put that much in there. I still don't trust the containters/pools anyway, as their are nuclear storage facilities that start leaking radioactive material only sligtly over their lifespans.

High grade radioactive material is still highly dangerious, and subject to reaching a critical mass, especially if we put that much in there. I still don't trust the containters/pools anyway, as their are nuclear storage facilities that start leaking radioactive material only sligtly over their lifespans.
The size of the facility should ensure that quite a few layers of protection are allowed. Besides, part of the reasion why this site was selected was because of its low rainfall, and it is thus safe against erosion. Most of these sites you are reffering to are near nuclear power plants. The areas around them tend to have high rainfall and a high water table. They need to, as water is a perfect moderator and coolant for reactors. However, it erodes these containers. There shouldn't be that problem @ Yucca Mountain.

Now, people. I saw a little something that may hold a solution. I saw a road sign that pointed to a gas station and said "compressed natural gas". It's becoming more popular, and may allieviate some drivers from far more costly gasoline.

bump
BTW, I thought of another possible ramification: this may ease things in Iraq. The oil that they sell makes lots of money, and this will really speed their reconstruction, and help to revive their economy. Last year, according to the Economist, Iraq's economy grew by a stunning 40%. This year, they may even grow faster.

The size of the facility should ensure that quite a few layers of protection are allowed. Besides, part of the reasion why this site was selected was because of its low rainfall, and it is thus safe against erosion. Most of these sites you are reffering to are near nuclear power plants. The areas around them tend to have high rainfall and a high water table. They need to, as water is a perfect moderator and coolant for reactors. However, it erodes these containers. There shouldn't be that problem @ Yucca Mountain.
In 200 years will it not be a problem? In 10,000 years will it not be a problem?

Eh, you see the problems with this? Nuclear energy creates things that are almost impossible to protect over the long term, and god forbid if something should happen to our civilization (say, we fall back to a prenuclear technology state), will those items still be able to be secure?

In 200 years will it not be a problem? In 10,000 years will it not be a problem?

Eh, you see the problems with this? Nuclear energy creates things that are almost impossible to protect over the long term, and god forbid if something should happen to our civilization (say, we fall back to a prenuclear technology state), will those items still be able to be secure?
No. But if something happens to humanity between now and the next 10,000 years, then it will leak in an area that is absolutely unihabitable to primative people for at least 500 miles in all directions. Besides, wouldn't you think that before something like that happened, a nuclear war would break out? That would radiate large portions of the planet.

So, no one else wants to jump in?

So no one really belives in Wind Turbine or Wave power?

So no one really belives in Wind Turbine or Wave power?
I do. I can't say much about wave power, but wind power has great potential. It has broken into the energy mainstream, now supplying about a quarter of Denmark's electricity. Elsewhere, it is meeting with success. "Wind farms" are proliferating in the US, though they are mostly confined to windy mountainous areas. The Freedom Tower in New York will have wind turbines on the top, and they will supply 20% of the building's electricity. They will even be sheltered in a cage, so as not to chop passing birds into pieces. However, I do not see them as making a significant impact in the current cost of energy.

No. But if something happens to humanity between now and the next 10,000 years, then it will leak in an area that is absolutely unihabitable to primative people for at least 500 miles in all directions. Besides, wouldn't you think that before something like that happened, a nuclear war would break out? That would radiate large portions of the planet.
It would most likely end up being reinhabited, lets say that we get knocked back 200 years to a pre-industrial age environment because of the collaspe of all our oil reserves (the premise in here), so there are going to be people living their, they just simply wouldn't know what radation is if it knocked them in the head.

How high can oil go before it damages the economy?

For countries such as the US that rely almost exclusively on oil as a fuel resource for material good transportation, it doesn't take very much to have a negative effect on the economy.

However, we must consider that in comparison to the oil shock of the 70s, the current price jump in relation to today's dollar is not nearly as bad as the jump in the 70s. It will just take a little longer for the true costs to manifest themselves in the economy. Expect a slight delay for inflation to rise. Since nearly everything that we consume, from food to furniture relies on oil for transportation, an increased cost in oil will drive up the overall costs. Modern farming techniques are highly oil intensive (tractors, pesticides, production of pesticides, distribution of goods...etc.). Increase in the cost of oil pushes up food prices. Increases in the cost of food prices decreases the real world paycheck of the average worker. This in turn increases the cost of labor as people will eventually begin to work for less and fight for more pay just to make ends meet. Or conversely, it could lead to a further trimming of the world labor market due to lack of overall supply to meet demand. End result is rampant inflation as the price of fuel increases.

As far as alternatives go, one must consider the costs of extracting an equivalent energy-unit worth of oil versus the cost of producing energy from another source. The energy produced by oil far exceeds the energy you need to put into extracting it. Thus, oil is, for the moment, the best tool the meet the needs of society for transportation. iirc, oil provides something like 100 to 1 return on energy invested for energy produced, compared to 4 to 1 or so for ethanol for example. I'm pulling these numbers more or less out of my ass, so somone who is ambitious enough to google the result, please feel free to correct this! :)

It would most likely end up being reinhabited, lets say that we get knocked back 200 years to a pre-industrial age environment because of the collaspe of all our oil reserves (the premise in here), so there are going to be people living their, they just simply wouldn't know what radation is if it knocked them in the head.
But the area is in the middle of a desert! Even today, the nearest city of any size is hundreds of miles away. Inhabiting it today is impossible for all but a few people. Most of those that live out there are in the military, and other than its defensive role, the area is unsuitable for much in the way of economic activity.

Heh. What we really need is to invest in devices to make use of the massive overabundance of geothermal energy. Extract energy from super-massive volcanoes such as yellowstone or mammoth mt. in CA to diffuse them. Prevent massive global catastrophies and supply a nearly endless supply of energy at the same time! :)

Of course this is complete and utterly impractical, but that's besides the point!

How high can oil go before it damages the economy?

For countries such as the US that rely almost exclusively on oil as a fuel resource for material good transportation, it doesn't take very much to have a negative effect on the economy.

However, we must consider that in comparison to the oil shock of the 70s, the current price jump in relation to today's dollar is not nearly as bad as the jump in the 70s. It will just take a little longer for the true costs to manifest themselves in the economy. Expect a slight delay for inflation to rise. Since nearly everything that we consume, from food to furniture relies on oil for transportation, an increased cost in oil will drive up the overall costs. Modern farming techniques are highly oil intensive (tractors, pesticides, production of pesticides, distribution of goods...etc.). Increase in the cost of oil pushes up food prices. Increases in the cost of food prices decreases the real world paycheck of the average worker. This in turn increases the cost of labor as people will eventually begin to work for less and fight for more pay just to make ends meet. Or conversely, it could lead to a further trimming of the world labor market due to lack of overall supply to meet demand. End result is rampant inflation as the price of fuel increases.

Ah, the old stagflation idea: inflation in a recession. It holds merit, but there is one thing to remember: the economy is not as oil dependent as it was in the 1970s. Back then, some of the muscle cars had just two miles to the gallon. Nearly all of our electricity that didn't come from coal or dams came from oil, and many people worked in energy-intensive manufacturing. Things have changed. Cars are more efficient, energy is derived from an ever widening amount of sources, and more and more people work in services, where the only energy needed is enough to power a telephone and a computer.

But the area is in the middle of a desert! Even today, the nearest city of any size is hundreds of miles away. Inhabiting it today is impossible for all but a few people. Most of those that live out there are in the military, and other than its defensive role, the area is unsuitable for much in the way of economic activity.
Climate change?

Climate change?
Not in that area. It may get warmer or colder in that area, but its topography makes it a desert until some tectonic event happens, which takes millions of years.

Things have changed. Cars are more efficient, energy is derived from an ever widening amount of sources, and more and more people work in services, where the only energy needed is enough to power a telephone and a computer.

Have they really changed though? Maybe in western Europe and the US, but consider where do the parts and components that make up your computer come from? What about the food that keeps us alive to fuel the economy? These products are built, assembled, farmed, produced, and shipped from ports in Africa, Asia, and south america. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that heavy industry doesn't exist. It's just been pushed conveniently out of sight.

Have they really changed though? Maybe in western Europe and the US, but consider where do the parts and components that make up your computer come from? What about the food that keeps us alive to fuel the economy? These products are built, assembled, farmed, produced, and shipped from ports in Africa, Asia, and south america. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that heavy industry doesn't exist. It's just been pushed conveniently out of sight.
Yes it has. But in time, these nations will make the same transformation. As for manufacturing, it is getting more efficient by the day. Less manpower is required to build more, resulting in a net decrease of energy intensity.
BTW, the food arguement doesn't hold that much water. The US and most of Europe is a net food exporter, and Japan and South Korea import their food from these places, anyway. Farming still requires oil, but less than it use to. Tractors are many times more fuel efficient, and biodeisal and ethanol are starting to be used in food production. The added bonus is that it all comes from food, anyway.

Now, people, back to fission. According to Popular Science, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave liscenses to build nuclear power plants in the US. As for the Energy Department, they are currently building a test reactor in Idaho for a group of nations that has researched new nuclear reactors. Not scheduled for completion until 2016, however.

bump