Sciencemadness Discussion Board - peak oil

peak oil

trinitrotoluene - 12-7-2004 at 14:58

If this is true, then it won't be really long when oil production peaks.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[Edited on 12-7-2004 by trinitrotoluene]

Quantum - 12-7-2004 at 19:56

I say 50% of the claims in that book are bullshit and the ones that are true are 50% over the top.

We are still in deep shit! Invest your money in gold and silver rounds. I like the ones made by sunshine mint myself.

Heres a good page about investing in metals for survival uses. The nice thing about it is you can profit now and if the worst happens still have money. I predict dollars will be worthless. Cartons of ciggarets might be good too.

Survival Metals

Nevermore - 22-7-2004 at 03:50

in my personal opinion we should have enuf oil for 40-50 years more, then it will start to be short..
let's see what happens by then..books write stuffs cuz they have to sell..

vulture - 22-7-2004 at 06:23

Yes, there's a gigantic coal tar deposit in canada which could be used to extract oil, BUT it costs more energy to exploit it than it'll ever deliver.

People are so stuck on oil they'll waste other useful resources (methane) to produce oil... :mad:

BAN SUVs! BAN SUVs!!

I am a fish - 22-7-2004 at 09:51

Quote:

Originally posted by vulture
BAN SUVs! BAN SUVs!!

Off road vehicles have valid uses, but this ridiculous fashion of using them like ordinary cars makes me furious. There is absolutely no benefit to using them this way. They are less safe than cars (they protect their occupants better in accidents, but this is outweighed by their tendency to roll over), and are no more spacious or comfortable than an equivalent people carrier. Not only are they pointless, but they waste precious resources, cause more pollution and are dangerous to other road users.

SUVs should be taxed to death, unless the owner can demonstrate a valid need for them (for example, if he or she is a farmer). In addition, they should be subject to the same traffic restrictions as other agricultural and construction vehicles.

chemoleo - 22-7-2004 at 10:03

I couldnt agree more. I couldnt believe how many pick up trucks and similar vehicles are right in Manhattan. What the hell for? A tiny Toyota, needing 8 l/100 km is more than sufficient (particularly most people travel alone in cars)- rahter than those metal monsters that are commonly in use, which eat up 25-30 l per 100 km. WHat a waste of resources, and how inconsiderate to our planet.
Oh well, our children (or even ourselves) will have to bear the consequences.
There have been Tornadoes in Germany lately, and as long as I remember there were never reports of it before. Whats happening?

Polverone - 22-7-2004 at 10:08

Banning SUVs accomplishes very little by itself (at least in terms of oil dependence). Using oil more slowly, without developing alternative energy sources, is just a stay of execution, like a diver trying to breathe more slowly from his oxygen tank. I have no doubt that industrial civilization can survive the passing of oil, thanks to coal and its versatile chemistry. But I do doubt that most westerners want to have a WW II Germany standard of living, so it would be nice to develop better production methods while we still have easy-to-exploit resources to provide the infrastructure.

Sometimes it takes a crisis to provoke action, so I'm not too sad if oil prices begin steadily rising sooner rather than later. Steadily rising prices also indicate that alternative energy processes can be developed without suddenly being wiped out by cheap oil, which makes them more attractive to private research in addition to government research, and brings more minds and resources to bear on the problem.

I am a fish - 23-7-2004 at 01:03

I agree. However, what makes me even more furious, is that we have the solution to the energy crisis, but it's not being implemented. Nuclear power will essentially last for ever (uranium reserves will eventually run out, but thorium is as abundant as lead and can readily be converted to nuclear fuel), and if the waste is treated properly, produces no pollution. However, politically active groups of anti-scientific extremists, masquerading as environmentalists oppose it. I fully support most forms of environmental protection. However, in my opinion, anyone who is opposed to nuclear power isn't an environmentalist, but merely an idiot.

Nuclear Energy

MadHatter - 23-7-2004 at 06:28

These anti-nuclear nutjobs really piss me off. Where do they think they'll get their
electricity in the future ? Immediate construction of fission reactors needs to
happen to 1st replace oil consuming plants then 2nd to replace the even more
polluting coal burning plants. Nuclear fusion needs to be funded for rapid
development. After all, fission fuel won't last forever. Alternate(read non-fossil)
technologies can and will contribute to the power grid but will never replace nuclear
power.

vulture - 23-7-2004 at 06:37

Ah the anti-nuclear nutcases...sigh....

Maybe we should "invent" a new uranium isotope, called BIOisotopium....

It's got BIO in it, so it must be good for the environment!!

Fucking idiots still judge things by their names.

[Edited on 23-7-2004 by vulture]

Cyrus - 23-7-2004 at 10:52

Yes, also tell them the reactor was made with 99.99% organic or naturally occuring elements.

The only true solution to all of our power needs is to turn everything off. But hey! I'm not going to, and there would be a few other problems too.

Nuclear power is OK with me, but I personally like solar and hydrogen power better, even though they lack the large capacity of nuclear power currently.

I am a fish - 23-7-2004 at 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus
I personally like... hydrogen power better...

Hydrogen isn't an energy source per se, but a means of distributing energy, which is reliant on other energy sources. To make it, you must either convert another fuel into hydrogen (e.g. CH4 + 2H2O -> CO2 + 4H2), or put energy into extracting it from a non-fuel (e.g. 2H2O -> O2 + 2H2).

I am a fish - 23-7-2004 at 12:25

Quote:

Originally posted by vulture
Ah the anti-nuclear nutcases...sigh....

Maybe we should "invent" a new uranium isotope, called BIOisotopium....

It's got BIO in it, so it must be good for the environment!!

Fucking idiots still judge things by their names.

[Edited on 23-7-2004 by vulture]

How about "Organic Bioisotopium"? It would be possible (although pointless) to run a reactor off an organic uranium salt. Of course, the idiots would take the word "organic" slightly differently.

The advertising practically writes itself:

"We take only the finest, natural pitchblende and gently extract our bioisotopium from it, using only organic ingredients." (Again, I expect it would be just about possible to contrive a uranium extraction using only organic reagents.)

"We gather the natural energy released by our bioisotopium crystals." (Most solids are crystalline if you go down to a small enough scale).

That should fool quite a few of the idiots

vulture - 24-7-2004 at 01:35

Hmmm...interesting Mr. Fish....Me thinks we should have a propaganda & marketing department like all big...erh...institutions..

Cyrus - 25-7-2004 at 21:05

Quote:

Originally posted by I am a fish

Hydrogen isn't an energy source per se, but a means of distributing energy, which is reliant on other energy sources. To make it, you must either convert another fuel into hydrogen (e.g. CH4 + 2H2O -> CO2 + 4H2), or put energy into extracting it from a non-fuel (e.g. 2H2O -> O2 + 2H2).

Oops.

You are being a tad bit picky

, but I guess you are right.

Unless...

H2 could be somehow extracted from the stars, and shipped to earth, then used directly.

Now THAT would be using H2 as a fuel.

Vulture, a propeganda dept. would be great... but we need a central tenant with which to hammer people.

[Edited on 26-7-2004 by Cyrus]

Magpie - 26-7-2004 at 17:38

I forsee a great future for Mr. Fish as propaganda minister for the nuclear industry. I mentioned to my mother-in-law tonight that I had recently taken a course in organic chemistry. She asked if that had to do with landscaping.

Organic nuclear ?

MadHatter - 7-8-2004 at 00:20

I am a Fish, I almost fell out of my chair laughing after reading your
"advertising". Throw in "biodegradable" and surely they'll be
convinced ! (LOL !)

Sarevok - 7-8-2004 at 01:03

In short, the world is falling apart and we are all dreaming about shipping hydrogen from the stars to here and using nuclear energy without polluting the world with radioactive waste (Chernobyl anyone?), instead of facing the grim reality: there is no hope; we are doomed. All is lost. We ate all the burguers we could. We watched a lot of TV. We enjoyed our ridiculous "modern" lifestyle at the expense of the world and now, shit is coming back to us.

Wood lasted for millenia. Charcoal, for centuries. Petroleum, for decades. The next trinket that is going to be created by the techno-nerds will not last very long, see? The system is going to crash under its own weight.

[Edited on 7/8/2004 by Sarevok]

vulture - 7-8-2004 at 06:25

Sarevok, I'm a bit dissapointed that a critical person like you uses the same antinuclear propaganda as the environutcases.

Nuclear waste can be buried under ground. Try keeping the equivalent mass of carbondioxide in check.

I volunteer for dumping nuclear waste in my back yard. High activity if you want. There's a shitload of clay down there that doesn't even allow water or oxygen to pass, so.

chemoleo - 7-8-2004 at 06:48

Well I never saw so much the trouble with nuclear waste anyhow.
As a temporary solution, it can be safely buried.
As a final solution, and given time, the waste can be packed into rockets and shot into the sun. This of course requires a proper space age, where rockets are cheap, and space travel is common. So certainly not the next 50 years

Environutcases - hmm, vulturius, I dont like that term. It cant hurt to be overly cautious regarding the environment. It's much better than not caring at all.
For instance, I am also all for nuclear energy. But one has to view it with a grain of salt, not all nuclear reactors and waste disposals are as safe as they should be. Russia for one, many for others too.
Providing some international agency enforced a certain level of safety/quality/disposal for all nuclear reactors in the world, I am all for abandoning other types of fossil energy.

vulture - 7-8-2004 at 07:53

We have the proper and safe technology but we can't use it because of the enviroterrorists (

) keep spreading lies about it.

Russia and a whole lot of other countries use unsafe and crappy reactor technology everyday. They don't listen to environmentalists, they jail them.

Now, what is the result of all this? Because nearly no western country is building new reactors, there is little invention in the field of efficiency and security. If there were, it would be much easier to convince the russians and others to switch to safer technology because it's cheaper.

The enviroterrorists only make matters worse with their jihads and crusades.

Same goes for their stalling of nuclear waste transports. Oh yeah, let's keep it out on the road as long as possible! Very safe!

I'm all game for REASONABLE and scientifically supported environmentalism. But not the semiscientific crap the enviroterrorists keep spouting.
And because they're spouting crap, they make environmental actions or laws that do make sense prone to easy attack by big corporations and politicians.

Conclusion: They're a bunch of fucking hypocrits.

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by vulture]

Sarevok - 7-8-2004 at 09:48

Ok, let's suppose nuclear energy is free of danger and efficient. And what about all the other problems in the world? Taxes going up, salaries going down, higher crime rates, lack of water (it is becoming more and more scarce these days, thanks to the shitload of water that agriculture needs to provide food for billions of idiots), lack of food, "terrorism," people getting more and more alienated, more and more stupid (you have to agree with me, most people act and think as if they were trained animals, or robots, they don't seem to have a mind of their own), the "system" controlling our lives more and more (Orwell was right!), etc.

Nuclear power CAN be a decent way of solving the energy problem, but what about the rest? Most social problems cannot be solved, for society itself is the problem.

PS: I admit I attacked the nuclear power not because it is flawed. Rather, I attacked it because, without energy sources, that evil, scheming entity that is taking my freedom away and shutting sites down, "the system," is going to be weakened. My objective was to convince you that nuclear power is flawed because that would be a small victory in my personal war against the world. Next time, I will need better arguments. Perhaps I can talk about saving the children or something. It always work.

[Edited on 7/8/2004 by Sarevok]

Waste containment

MadHatter - 7-8-2004 at 09:51

In the 80's I saw a filmed demonstration of the strength of the
containment vessels for nuclear wastes. One of these vessels was
placed on a small pickup truck and then hit by a locomotive. The
truck was instantly turned into scrap metal but the containment
vessel barely had dents on its cooling fins ! When checked, the
vessel had no leaks of any kind. This was the 80's and the technology
has probably improved. Given that kind of strength, I'm not worried
about burying radioactive wastes.

If I wasn't a reasonable person, I'd say shoot the anti-nuclear
motherfuckers. Until we get more nuclear power plants, OPEC will
have the rest of world by the balls and wars for oil will continue unabated.

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by MadHatter]

vulture - 7-8-2004 at 10:52

Current containers in which high activity waste is transported are made of an extremely strong titanium alloy. It'll resist both locomotive impact and armor piercing warheads.

Magpie - 7-8-2004 at 13:35

Sarevok has indicated the true problem - the nature of man. Man, being at the top of the food chain, has his way with all the other animals, vegetables, and minerals. But since he is only an animal he doesn't know when to stop accumulating or procreating. Overpopulation and resource shortages result. Then wars, famine, and pestilence follow.

Man must get his population under control to obtain social stability. Then real progress can follow.

Polverone - 7-8-2004 at 14:14

I don't know that cessation of population growth is a sufficient or necessary condition for social change. Medieval Europe had very slow population growth (and even times of shrinkage, as during great plagues) but was no bastion of enlightenment. Considerable social progress was made 30-40 years ago in the US, when birth rates were unusually high. Slowing population growth does in fact prompt at least some short-term crises. For example, in Europe, Japan, and the US (on differing time scales), population growth has slowed enough that there will be difficulty paying for the next generation of retired workers by the next generation of active workers.

In the developed nations at least, there is no shortage of resources that would prevent all from having adequate food, shelter, education, and health care. The arguments are over how to distribute abundant wealth, not over who will barely be fed and who will starve. Further, as population growth slows, we'll have an increasing mass of older voters. Such voters are more likely to vote than the young and also less likely to be aggressive or adventurous about finding solutions for problems that will become urgent only after their own deaths.

Greater wealth and education seem to slow population growth more effectively than any bundle of pamphlets or contraceptives, but of course wealthier families may easily consume more natural resources even if they have fewer members. With unlimited time and energy, any natural resource is completely renewable. Time and energy are of course finite. Mineral resources are far easier to recycle than those derived from plants/animals, but plants and animals accumulate far faster than mineral deposits. Living creatures can go extinct, while elements last forever. Mineral deposits don't play as large of a role in the biosphere, so their (clean) extraction has less undesirable impact than the harvesting or clearing of land that once bore a variety of flora and fauna. Determining the best and cleanest way forward is by no means easy.

IvX - 7-8-2004 at 15:06

Well if you want to look at it from a global perpective you gotta ignore the (somewhat) parasitic action of the retired.Specially considering it's not the 15th century and retired people can probably work anyway(unless ofcourse it's medical in which it's a compltely diferent matter).

Think about it: In order to have someone look after you like you did for your parents there would need to be a exactly one person born for everyone that died.Since that's impossibl;e you'll just get more.The worlds a big-ish place and all but if they do it and thier children and so forth you get well.. whats hapening now.

Globaly speaking this might seem like an odd perspective but (IMHO ofcourse)the best way is to offer more goods/services or if that fails to raise the cost of living.Cruell solutiobn maybe ut beats us all suffocating