NationStates Jolt Archive

Before making any contribution to this thread, I'd ask you first to have a look at the following website -

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Are we seriously fucked? What options are open to us? Anybody?

We aren;t going to run out of oil. There's more out there than you would believe. Some of it's more expensive to process than others, so that could mean higher prices, but there's probably a thousand years' worth.

Think of where technology was 100 years ago... I think we can find something better in 1000. Of course, there's always ethanol even with our modern technology. So even if we make no progress at all in 1000 years, there's renewable corn and synthetics, and even biodeisel. Nothing's gonna change.

Nothing's going to change, is right. Because the oil companies are not going to let alternative fuel become a reasonable source of energy. Why? Because people still want to use oil. And they will pay whatever the oil companies tell them to pay to get it.

I predict that the greedy rich people will cause oil to run out, suopergigahyperinflation to run rampant, and the entire world to be set back some three undred years at least. I just hope that I am self0sufficient by that time.

OK, so even if we do run out of oil...what about coal? Is oil really the only thing we can use? Or has the oil industry so taken over the world that even considering alternative sources of fuel is blasphemy? It's my understanding that in Appalachians, there's enough coal to last a few centuries. If we're not short-sighted and if the coal industry doesn't pwn us as much as the oil industry, we should have plenty of time to come up with a new source of fuel.

The world will be different, there's no doubt. We won't see fuel-guzzling vehicles in the street anymore, for one thing. But we can rely on nuclear and forms of renewable energy for industrial production, so the idea of a "post industrial stone age" is a bit daft.

Don't forget about converting animal parts to oil (forgot the term...). We'll still have oil after the natural sources run dry --- Though, not nearly as much. It definitely won't be used as an energy source, which is good.

Crude oil creates a variety of things, not just fuel for cars and other use of energy, it also makes plastic, among other things. What are we gonna do about that?

See my post above yours :p.

Don't forget about converting animal parts to oil (forgot the term...). We'll still have oil after the natural sources run dry --- Though, not nearly as much. It definitely won't be used as an energy source, which is good.

We SHOULD be converting hemp into bioethanol, because it is one of the most renewable sources of energy on the planet. Clean, too.

But, if we don't have a sufficient energy source, you folks are all dead. Unless you live somewhere warm enough, with enough fruits and veggies that grow naturally, it'll only be the bumpkins that actually grow hteir own food and don't rely on oil that'll survive any length of time.

And I have a big, big gun to chase away anyone who would think to steal my food from me. ;)

We SHOULD be converting hemp into bioethanol, because it is one of the most renewable sources of energy on the planet. Clean, too.


Corn to ethanol is faster and cheaper than hemp. Once again liquor trumps dope. Hippies can't ever get a break, can they? :(

We'll probably have to synthetically create oil like the Germans did in WWII, as they didnt have that vast reserves of oil or find other alternatives as the technology for alternatives are their they are just controlled by certain companies who don't see them as finacially viable for themselves.

If we actually do run out, it will be just like the opening vignette in the movie The Road Warrior.

If we actually do run out, it will be just like the opening vignette in the movie The Road Warrior.

That'd be sweet! With the voiceover and everything.

We aren;t going to run out of oil. There's more out there than you would believe. Some of it's more expensive to process than others, so that could mean higher prices, but there's probably a thousand years' worth.

That estimate is at least 10 times as long as most others'. What do you base it on?

Corn to ethanol is faster and cheaper than hemp. Once again liquor trumps dope. Hippies can't ever get a break, can they? :(

You are my personal hero... dirty hippies. It is a scientific fact that corn to ethanol is faster and cheaper... get your head out of the 70's people and into the now. The problem we have is that the environmentalists won't let us drill where the oil is... god forbid we hurt perma-frost... wtf has perma-frost done for me? Will it cook me a burger? Will it make me better looking?

I am of course being sarcastic, but we need to start thinking a little bit more about the future and a little less about hurting some thing that doesn't even do anything cool.

Don't forget about converting animal parts to oil (forgot the term...). Thermopodolisation (sp)?

That'd be sweet! With the voiceover and everything.
Shove over, I'm driving!

there's always ethanol even with our modern technology

The ethanol in fuels is produced using a byproduct of a process called 'cracking' which is done on crude oil :)
Ethanol from fermentation just isn't pure enough.
It also means much more expensive vodka..

The ethanol in fuels is produced using a byproduct of a process called 'cracking' which is done on crude oil :)
Ethanol from fermentation just isn't pure enough.
It also means much more expensive vodka..
Ethanol is also extremely low powered compared to octane. That's why ethanol is only used as an additive to gasoline (i.e., to octane).

I believe turning animal parts to oil is called rendering.. I may be wrong.. I severely doubt you could run a car on the result - fry a burger maybe..

I believe turning animal parts to oil is called rendering.. I may be wrong.. I severely doubt you could run a car on the result - fry a burger maybe..

Yea as the molecule is too small (C2H5OH)

The ethanol in fuels is produced using a byproduct of a process called 'cracking' which is done on crude oil :)
Ethanol from fermentation just isn't pure enough.
It also means much more expensive vodka..

Currently it is. The fuel used for processing could be nuclear, wind or hydro in the future, it makes no difference.

Just to clear up how much oil is actually remaining around the world, here are some figures published in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1208666) , taken from a BP Statistical Review of World Energy in 2002:

Country - Oil reserves remaining (years)

Iraq - 100+
United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) - 100+
Kuwait - 100+
Saudi Arabia - 85
Iran - 67
Venezuela - 64
Azerbaijan - 64
Libya - 57
Qatar - 56
Nigeria - 31
Mexico - 22
China -20
Russia - 19
USA - 11
Canada - 9
Britain - 6

Other countries do have oil reserves, but these are the main ones. Saudi Arabia is by far the biggest producer and also has the most oil (261 billion barrels in reserve), but because they export more, they will run out sooner than, say, Iraq.

On a personal note, after seeing these figures it came as no surprise to me how close the Bush family and administration are to the Saudi royals, and I'm sure you can work out for yourselves what I believe to be the primary motivation for the war in Iraq.

Thermopodolisation (sp)?

Thermodepolymerization/Thermodepolymerisation. That's it.

Thanks for jogging my memory!

Thermodepolymerization/Thermodepolymerisation. That's it.

Thanks for jogging my memory!

You could make soylent green the same way. Using people.

I just like to point out an error fairly early on in the artical which is pretty blatent:

Whereas conventional oil has enjoyed a rate of "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI) of about 30 to 1, the oil sands rate of return hovers around 1.5 to 1.

This means that we would have to spend 15 times as much money to generate the same amount of oil from the oil sands as we do from conventional sources of oil.

Um, no. It doesn't cost 15 times as much money to generate oil from oil sands. You see, what you do is, you set up your conversion machine, and then you use one litre of oil to power it and get 1.5 litres in return. Then you take one litre of the oil you converted and use it to power the machine to make another 1.5 litres. See what I'm getting at here? The process generates enough oil to keep it going.

A simple mistake like that makes me suggest you think carefully and double check other things the article says.

Nanotech, biodeisel, vegetable oil, ethanol, methanol, nuke power etc.. etc..

Anyone heard that the old oil wells are filling back up?
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/24/101927/375

Anyone heard that the old oil wells are filling back up?
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/24/101927/375

Sounds interesting. What to make of it? I'm not very sure.

Anyone heard that the old oil wells are filling back up?
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/24/101927/375

Yea, intresting just shows that truth is just a widely held opinion.

Before making any contribution to this thread, I'd ask you first to have a look at the following website -

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Are we seriously fucked? What options are open to us? Anybody?

Well if you're talking about Middle Eastern oil... when that runs out, we could tap Alaska.

Thermopodolisation (sp)?
Thermodepolymerization I think. Yeah. It's a great idea. Reduces the ammount of waste going to landfills, produces oil, natural gas, and fertilizer.

Thermodepolymerization I think. Yeah. It's a great idea. Reduces the ammount of waste going to landfills, produces oil, natural gas, and fertilizer.

Better than putting detainees in Guantanamo. At least you get some use out of them.

The article says:

If you're wondering why the mainstream media is not covering an issue of this magnitude 24/7, now you know. Once the seriousness of situation is generally acknowledged, a panic will spread on the markets and bring down the entire house of cards even if production hasn't actually peaked.

Yes, I'm sure that's how the media works.

The media never runs stories about things like the Asian bird flu for fear of creating a panic.

Why just the other day they had a story on TV about how watching TV is bad for you.

Somehow I don't think the media is aware of the concept of preventing panic.

Here is another gem from the article:

Rather than accept the high-tech myths proposed by the politicians and economists...

If you trust a politician, maybe you deserve what you get, but the article says you shouldn't listen to economists? Who else is better qualified to talk about scarcity? If economics isn't about scarcity then what the hell is it about? Ballet?

On a personal note, after seeing these figures it came as no surprise to me how close the Bush family and administration are to the Saudi royals, and I'm sure you can work out for yourselves what I believe to be the primary motivation for the war in Iraq.

:headbang: You people and your theories. It's war for oil, it's war to finish what is father started... for the love of god people, do you not realize that Clinton was constantly bombing Iraq?? Do you not realize that they violated UN sanctions numerous times? Do you not realize that there are HUNDREDS of mass graves of innocent citizens used in Iraqi tests of chemical warfare?

So what happens if we invade Iran? Will you blame our shortage of sand?? Or perhaps our shortage of illegal breeder reactors?

More article silliness:

On a similar note, It would take close to 220,000 square kilometers of solar panels to power the global economy via solar power.

Wow, thats almost the area of Japan! And of course, we want to power the entire global economy via solar panels, but where will we find the room? This is a really tough question. I think I'll have to go sit on my roof and think about it.

:headbang: You people and your theories. It's war for oil, it's war to finish what is father started... for the love of god people, do you not realize that Clinton was constantly bombing Iraq?? Do you not realize that they violated UN sanctions numerous times? Do you not realize that there are HUNDREDS of mass graves of innocent citizens used in Iraqi tests of chemical warfare?

So what happens if we invade Iran? Will you blame our shortage of sand?? Or perhaps our shortage of illegal breeder reactors?

Ever thought the theories might be true?

As just look at Zimbarewe, the UK and US will not touch it despite it's human rights abuses. Why? Because Corperate America see that it has no uses to them!

:headbang: You people and your theories. It's war for oil, it's war to finish what is father started... for the love of god people, do you not realize that Clinton was constantly bombing Iraq?? Do you not realize that they violated UN sanctions numerous times? Do you not realize that there are HUNDREDS of mass graves of innocent citizens used in Iraqi tests of chemical warfare?

So what happens if we invade Iran? Will you blame our shortage of sand?? Or perhaps our shortage of illegal breeder reactors?

Saddam did not use chemical weapons on innocent civilians. They were in open revolt. A revolt that we provoked and then backed out of. We told the Kurds that if they rebelled we'd help them, then we changed our minds and abandoned them. Saddam put down the rebellion with the chemical weapons that we sold to him.

Also, we don't just invade to take their stuff, we invade to control their markets. Markets in oil, water, whatever they're buying, we want to be the ones selling it. And if they're not buying it, well we want to sell them that too.

Oh my God/endless vacuum. The more I read, the sillier it gets:

Unfortunately, solar and wind cannot be used as industrial-scale transportation fuels unless they are used to crack hydrogen from water via electrolysis. The electrolysis process is a simple one, but unfortunately it consumes 1.3 units of energy for every 1 unit of energy it produces. In other words, it results in a net loss of energy. You can't replace oil - which has a positive EROEI of about 30 - with an energy source that actually carries a negative EROEI.

YES YOU CAN! Refining oil costs energy too. The amount required depends on the grade of oil. So oil has a negative EROEI too. There is nothing in the universe that has a positive EROEI! Have you heard of physics you moron! A positive EROEI is a perpetual motion machine!

The figure of 30 he gives makes no sense at all. It's a ratio you fool! You can't have a one number ratio! The fact that he doesn't even explain what EROEI is makes me think he is trying to bamboozel the reader.

HA HA HA HA HA!

Do the math (.171/98) and you will see that a total of less then one-sixth of one percent of our energy appetite was satisfied with solar and wind combined.

You've already proved that you can't do math you imbecile!

Saddam put down the rebellion with the chemical weapons that we sold to him.

Wrong.

Conclusive tests of the materials found at Halabja (one of the chemical weapons massacre sites) indicate that the nerve gas used was locally produced by a Soviet, not US, production method.

Same for all the mustard gas used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War.

What people usually write down as "supplying weapons" is the giving of small samples of biological agents through the privately run American Type Collection - none of which were either used as weapons nor used in production runs of Iraqi bioweapons. Universities around the world commonly receive such samples.

I need not mention that the Iraqis also received samples from European type collections as well. Shall I do what you do, and assert wildly that the Europeans were providing Saddam with "weapons"?

The US did not provide ANY chemical weapons to Saddam. Ever.

Oh God! This is too rich!

1. Hydrogen is the smallest element known to man. As such, it will

leak out of any container;

I suppose that when it rains he refuses to put on a raincoat or use an umbrella because water molecules are smaller than the holes in the weave of the fabric and so he believes they will leak straight through?

The person who wrote this article was either a fool, or a scaremonger, or has some agenda to push. He does not tell the truth. The quality of the writing suggests that he is not completely stupid which suggests that he is a liar.

And so the world becomes polluted with this garbage, which makes serious discussion about oil shortages just that much more difficult.

Oh my God/endless vacuum. The more I read, the sillier it gets:



YES YOU CAN! Refining oil costs energy too. The amount required depends on the grade of oil. So oil has a negative EROEI too. There is nothing in the universe that has a positive EROEI! Have you heard of physics you moron! A positive EROEI is a perpetual motion machine!

The figure of 30 he gives makes no sense at all. It's a ratio you fool! You can't have a one number ratio! The fact that he doesn't even explain what EROEI is makes me think he is trying to bamboozel the reader.

positive EROEI /= perpetual motion.

All it reffers to is the energy required to extract the energy [/b]already contained[/b] within oil. Nothing is created or destroyed, it is simply converted from 1 form to another.

Wow, thats almost the area of Japan! And of course, we want to power the entire global economy via solar panels, but where will we find the room? This is a really tough question. I think I'll have to go sit on my roof and think about it.

Haha! Excellent. I award you a cookie.

Well, the US captures the whole Third World, and we march their children into the thermodepolymerization machines. They keep having babies, we keep throwing them in...

Isn't that the latest conspiracy theory about the US?

Haha! Excellent. I award you a cookie.

*also hands him a cookie*

You will also be the twelvth person up for my special award!

Well if you're talking about Middle Eastern oil... when that runs out, we could tap Alaska.

Alaska's oil reserve will only be used if absolutely necessary. The fact is, there isn't that much oil in the places that people want to be drilling. THere would be pretty much no noticeable effect with the miniscule amount we would get. It's cheaper and more efficient to just import it in(Which many people don't understand). Of course, in a time of immediate emergency, than it should be used as a last resort, but I wouldn't hold my breath-if things were to get that bad, we probably would be working for alterior methods that don't need fossil fuels.

The problem, however, comes in synthetics, which is primarily made from oil. We can find alternate fuel sources, but it'd be difficult to find alternate sources for synthetics.

positive EROEI /= perpetual motion.

All it reffers to is the energy required to extract the energy [/b]already contained[/b] within oil. Nothing is created or destroyed, it is simply converted from 1 form to another.

So EROEI = Energy released over Energy input (please correct me if I am wrong.)

So if you had a machine which released more energy than you put into it, you'd have a perpetual motion machine.

The article deals with this concept in a very confusing way, not even defining what EROEI is. When he said that hydrogen had a negative EROEI as if it was a bad thing I laughed becaused it appeared that he thought only manufactured fuels that had broke the laws of physics would do. But oil isn't manufactured, if is pumped out of the ground and refined. The cost of energy to make it has already been paid by nature. That is what he is getting at in a very silly way. I of course was thinking of the energy used to create the oil, which it is quite reasonable to ignore for normal purposes.

So, one, it was silly of him to act shocked that hydrogen had a negative EROEI, as all the usable energy in the fuel is created by the process of making it.

Two, it was silly for me not to realize that most of the energy in oil can be considered "free" as it was paid for millions of years ago.

Thank you for prompting me to rethink this.

Oh God! This is too rich!



I suppose that when it rains he refuses to put on a raincoat or use an umbrella because water molecules are smaller than the holes in the weave of the fabric and so he believes they will leak straight through?

The person who wrote this article was either a fool, or a scaremonger, or has some agenda to push. He does not tell the truth. The quality of the writing suggests that he is not completely stupid which suggests that he is a liar.

And so the world becomes polluted with this garbage, which makes serious discussion about oil shortages just that much more difficult.

I dont agree with his statement, but yours is also wrong. Water is not hydrogen. Two tiny hydrogens bond to a relatively huge oxygen molecule to create water. Then the electrons around the water create a gigantic barrier around the actual substance. One hydrogen is smaller than an actual water molecule(h2o)

we will concievably never run out of oil. even if we used up all the oil in the ground we currently have the technology to use plant oils to produce fuel. the problem of course is that plant based oils are much more expensive because you have to grow and harvest it rather than just dig it up.

personally i wish the auto makers and the oil companies would stop milking the profits and quit fighting technological advancement.
hydrogen fuel cells devoloped by nasa decades ago are the war to go. hydrogen is readily available and the byproduct of burning it is....water, which means it is not harmful to the environment.

:cool:

clearly by that time robots will take over and use humans as a source of energy combined with Fusion.

we will concievably never run out of oil. even if we used up all the oil in the ground we currently have the technology to use plant oils to produce fuel. the problem of course is that plant based oils are much more expensive because you have to grow and harvest it rather than just dig it up.

personally i wish the auto makers and the oil companies would stop milking the profits and quit fighting technological advancement.
hydrogen fuel cells devoloped by nasa decades ago are the war to go. hydrogen is readily available and the byproduct of burning it is....water, which means it is not harmful to the environment.

:cool:

And if I remember correctly, most of the Hydrogen produced in the world is gotten from oil.

Nice try sparky.

The reason that alternatives to petroleum are so expensive is because petroleum is still cheap...

At the moment oil is still cheap enough to keep large firms buying it, when the availability of oil goes down and the price goes up it will become much more attractive to invest in alternatives. As these alternatives (like hyrdogen or biodiesel or nuclear power) become more popular suppliers of them will be able to grow large enough to take advantage of economies of scale and their costs will go down even further.

But I think the real issue is with the whole notion that the sky may be falling. It seems that a lot of people would love you to think that civilization will be ending soon... Oil peaks, global warming, asteroid strikes, The Rature, islamic terrorism, and remember Y2K?

Why is the world coming to an end in so many ways? Because people want money and don't want to earn it. Environmentalists want money, so they scream about oil peaks and global warming; astronomers want money, so they warn of impending meteor strikes; christian fundamentalists, militaristic politicians, computer companies, the list goes on. If people successfully gets you to believe that your entire existence relies on doing what they tell you, they have you hooked, you work for them.
The world hasn't ended yet, and I doubt that it will for many billion years.
Here's a tip: when someone tells you that the world is about to come to an end, raise a red flag and stop believing what this person tells you, they are only trying to recruit you to their cause.

One hydrogen is smaller than an actual water molecule(h2o)

I wrote, "holes in the weave of the fabric," just in case someone was worried about the fact that water molecules are larger than hydrogen molecules. The umbrella that is now on my lap has holes in the weave that I can see with my naked eye when I look closely. But it still keeps the rain off me.

The main point being that something doesn't have to be 100% leak proof to be effective.

The Hindenburg was made of lightweight fabric, but it still managed to hold hydrogen.

I think we've definetly got another 20+ years of fossil fuels. However, the main reason I cited that website in my original post was because of the very relevant point about how consumption is rising, perhaps too fast, production is not rising. The price of Oil in 1984 [when i was born] was something like $29-34 dpb [not official, recalling numbers out of my dodgy head], not its $54 dpb.

In 2005 we've got 5 billion people here on ol' earthy. In 2020, that number could be 7 or 9 billion. While i agree that some things are blown out of proportions on that website, its obvious that our dependency on oil may hinder future development. Its certainly a problem to nations across the globe, many of who import more than they export.

God-damn...when the hell is one of my 'end of the world' scenarios going to come true?! DIE EARTHY! :P

I wrote, "holes in the weave of the fabric," just in case someone was worried about the fact that water molecules are larger than hydrogen molecules. The umbrella that is now on my lap has holes in the weave that I can see with my naked eye when I look closely. But it still keeps the rain off me.

The main point being that something doesn't have to be 100% leak proof to be effective.

The Hindenburg was made of lightweight fabric, but it still managed to hold hydrogen.

It's liquid helium that's hard to contain.

It's liquid helium that's hard to contain.

Yeah I know. I left a beaker of it on the bench, turned my back and somebody swiped it. And now I sound like Mickey Mouse for some reason.

A few pointers:

1) most of the hype was written before massive oil reserves were discovered in Australia and Canada. for example, all post 2003 figures for oil in Canada now show it as having 180000 billion barrels - nearly as much as Iraq and Kuwait combined. Also, this doesn't take in to account improved extraction methods - Alberta tar sands may have anywhere from 1.7 to 2.5 TRILLION barrels - enough to supply the entire world for a good 80 years (with total extraction: not likely, but I'd say a good 50% could be recovered by the time I start pushing up dasies - far more than the current ~5%). According to most estimates by people with haircuts, the world has a good 100-200 years to figure out an alternative to oil, and as more reserves are found may have even longer. As a side bet - who wants to put money on the current oil companies being the patent holders of that oil-alternative tech?

2) umbrellas and water molocules: liquid behaviour is different from gas behaviour - if the water is not being absorbed by the material of the umbrella then there is a barrier between the two materials - and water has viscosity. It'll bead and roll off, which it does.

3) considering there are two hydrogen atoms bound in each molocule of water (sometimes 3...) then even considering the complex hydrocarbons of oil there is a heck of a lot more water than oil. I'd say water is the winner there - to say that most of the worlds' hydrogen is bound in oil is a tad foolish.