128shot said:With everyone just dropping straight down into it all-it comes down to this-the only way for us to survive is to either find an alternative to oil-or die
Is this true?
why am I scared for our future?
128shot said:With everyone just dropping straight down into it all-it comes down to this-the only way for us to survive is to either find an alternative to oil-or die
Western society is reaching peaks we never did, and it may all crash because of one resource we have become depedant on..
Is this true?
Anyone else offer a different arguement?
why am I scared for our future?
Napoleon's Nightingale said:The world's oil reserves are not going to run out at any point in the near future ie a few hundred years however alternative fuel sources have become a matter of national security and interest.
Estimates range from 15 to 50 years for cheap oil to run out, in which case companies will cease to make profit by using it. But the system takes care of itself, companies are already investing in other forms of energy (solar, wind, hydrogen). It's not like it's some big secret that in 15-50 years there will be a switch from oil to other energy forms. There is so much energy in wind, geothermal, solar, and other renewables that there really is no need to worry. Companies and businesses know it's coming and are preparing for it, like I said, the system takes care of itself.The world's oil reserves are not going to run out at any point in the near future ie a few hundred years however alternative fuel sources have become a matter of national security and interest.
penalizing consumers who buy SUVs
People like to think that there is no oil left so that they can believe that "alternative energies" should be researched. When in fact this is all irrelivant because companies and energy industries are preparing for a switch of some kind and are already investing in these "alternative energies."I don't think we are running out of oil, or will anytime soon. The people who are saying "Dude, we're like runnin out of oil!" are the same people who are opposing drilling in Alaska and the Rockies... places where we could not only get more oil but lessen our foreign dependance.
-Demosthenes- said:People like to think that there is no oil left so that they can believe that "alternative energies" should be researched. When in fact this is all irrelivant because companies and energy industries are preparing for a switch of some kind and are already investing in these "alternative energies."
These industries are (1) want to make money and (2) are not stupid (or can pay money for non-stupid people to give them advice). So it logically follows that the system will take care of itself.
Kandahar said:From an economic perspective, you're absolutely right: The world economy is not about to grind to a halt when we run out of oil, because we'll switch to something else long before that happens.
However, our dependence on oil has moved from simply being an economic problem to being a matter of national security. This is why the government should fund more research into alternative energies, to hopefully accelerate this process as quickly as possible.
There are future economic incentives for Business and Industry to do so, there is little reason for government incentives.I think the solution involves both an investment in alternative energies, by industry and government, and government incentives to encourage conservatioon of oil and taxes to discourage consumption of oil.
Bascule said:you ever heard of this thing called "macroeconomics"? Aggregate supply and demand?
Peak oil implies a gradual, steady decrease in supply. If supply decreases while demand remains constant, then price increases. As the price increases then demand for alternatives to oil, including ethanol, kerosene (coal oil), and hydrogen, will increase, and a new energy infrastructure will begin to materialize as demand for alternatives increases and the money made from them can be re-invested back into developing the infrastructure.
The grid doesn't just break when it runs out of something. The market will respond dynamically by bolstering alternatives as oil becomes increasingly more expensive.
Absolutely true, of course. The system will take care of itself. It should be pointed out that the system's goals are to maximize profits before all else and that this is not necessarily good for either society or the system's customers. If the system can make more money selling fuel for $50/gal than by developing alternative energy sources, then that's what it will do. It will never occur to the system to factor in what this will do to society.-Demosthenes- said:These industries are (1) want to make money and (2) are not stupid (or can pay money for non-stupid people to give them advice). So it logically follows that the system will take care of itself.
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:Absolutely true, of course. The system will take care of itself. It should be pointed out that the system's goals are to maximize profits before all else and that this is not necessarily good for either society or the system's customers. If the system can make more money selling fuel for $50/gal than by developing alternative energy sources, then that's what it will do. It will never occur to the system to factor in what this will do to society.
Kandahar said:From an economic perspective, you're absolutely right: The world economy is not about to grind to a halt when we run out of oil, because we'll switch to something else long before that happens.
However, our dependence on oil has moved from simply being an economic problem to being a matter of national security. This is why the government should fund more research into alternative energies, to hopefully accelerate this process as quickly as possible.
This line of thinking always relies on erroneous assumptions. It assumes that R&D of alternative forms of energy takes place in an economic vacuum, and nothing can speed up or slow down the process. In reality, companies will develop alternative forms of energy when it becomes economically feasible to do so. As the oil supply decreases and the demand increases, the price will go up. The higher the price of oil goes, the stronger the incentive for businesses to find an alternative.
Barring a national energy plan (which could speed up the process), alternative forms of energy will become readily available when they make economic sense, and not before.
I think we're screwed on the refinery side of the equation.
Estimates range from 15 to 50 years for cheap oil to run out, in which case companies will cease to make profit by using it.
But the system takes care of itself, companies are already investing in other forms of energy (solar, wind, hydrogen). It's not like it's some big secret that in 15-50 years there will be a switch from oil to other energy forms.
Good points made by the last few posters. We're not running out of oil. Technology will help extract it cheaper,
legislation will have to approve drilling in current "no go" zones and yes, the refinery capacity along with the entire distribution and delivery systems are extremely insufficient in order to support our rate of growth.
I don't think we are running out of oil, or will anytime soon. The people who are saying "Dude, we're like runnin out of oil!" are the same people who are opposing drilling in Alaska and the Rockies... places where we could not only get more oil but lessen our foreign dependance.
Besides, who says that hydrogen fuel cells are the best alternative? If we hype out now and quickly research something, it could be far worse than waiting.
People like to think that there is no oil left so that they can believe that "alternative energies" should be researched. When in fact this is all irrelivant because companies and energy industries are preparing for a switch of some kind and are already investing in these "alternative energies."
These industries are (1) want to make money and (2) are not stupid (or can pay money for non-stupid people to give them advice). So it logically follows that the system will take care of itself.
From an economic perspective, you're absolutely right: The world economy is not about to grind to a halt when we run out of oil, because we'll switch to something else long before that happens.
During WWII, the Germans used coal to make liquid fuels, and I wonder what is going on here that is similar. We have plenty of coal.
Perhaps the electricity from nuclear power plants can be used to run the processes that convert the energy in solid fuel coal to a diesel compatible liquid fuel? Seems to me that we already have that technology, but perhaps it isn't economically viable yet.
Very true, no business remains successful by working hard to find a substitute for its products, unless they can control a substantial portion of the substitute. So it makes sense that they at least keep tabs on the progress of alternatives.
Society is just along for the ride, except for the part about us being their customers. They don't have to worry too much about what we think of them as long as they are in control of the energy that we need.
About the only thing that we can do as individuals is use less of their product, but that doesn't seem to be acceptable to most Americans.
Is there a particular reason for that?The problem is that the switch needed to begin no later than 1992 at the very latest.
azreal60 said:Some things to keep in mind when discussing peak oil is it talks a different talk than you will hear from alot of economists. The reason is because they are used to dealing with a static background situation. Yes once in a while new tech would come out that would change the picture radically, but for the most part they deal with strategies that don't have the background changing.
What ashurban is mostly describing is a combination of factors associated with peak oil. One is scaleability, or the fact that any new technology or method of doing things takes time to go into effect. Even with pressure, you can't make physical deployment That much faster. It's not physically possible. Period. Two, there Are no technologies in combination currently or even in development that can replace oil in any large degree. I say again, in combination. In otherwords, I'm not asking for one magic tech to replace all we do with oil, I'm saying that even with all the things that people are proposing together, your still looking At best at a massive economic downturn. Worldwide. On a scale that makes the great depression look small.
At worst, well, I'm not sure you want to hear the at worst, but as ash has already gone into it, 2 billion is the population on this earth projected to be viable without oil. We are currently around 6 and heading north. Do the math.
I am not saying that our efforts and ideas will not have an effect on peak oil. What i am saying is no matter what we wish or try, it is not going to stop it from happening. It's a geologic fact we have known for about 60 years now, just largely ignored. And largely from ignoring it, we made it worse and worse every year. With every year of inaction, we slide farther and farther into things that would make it worse.
I would end with the fact that even people who disagree on the form of peakoil, largely anyone who has a grip on reality and isn't grasping at straws agrees that the facts regarding peak oil in terms of a geologic event aren't something that can be disputed. There is a large amount of dispute as to when it will actually happen, but a few years really isn't a large difference. It's going to happen probably within the timeline ashubran is talking about, and even the most conservative and optimistic estimate puts it only 5 to 10 years after that.
I am one of the moderators of www.peakoil.com, a website that deals with the ideas and debates surrounding peakoil. I joined the site because of the quality of debate, but also because i loved the information that i got out of it. I too once believed that technology would save our behinds. Until i read one of the scientists actually involved on the most well funded fusion project on the planet tell my board they weren't even close. And neither is anyone else. We have to start actually planning for this, and not acting like it's not going to happen anymore. Especially the United States. I can't think of more country's that have farther to fall, and more to lose.
I post under the same name on peakoil if you want to say hi.
128shot said:I agree with the geological fact, what I don't agree with is when its actually going to happen, IMO.
Technology won't save us from hard times-but it will save us from a irreviserable time.
I expect gas to level off at 3 dollars a gallon by 2010, and I also expect that we start mining shale before 2015.
then there is 4 centuries worth of known coal, and centuries more undiscovered that can be turned into petro...
Its going to be a bit harder times than before-but I think the human brain tends to solve problems when it has to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?