the impending oil crunch.

[whiskeytown]

This has been coming up in my reading a lot lately, and especially since gas hit 2 bucks a gallon in the US -

this is a finite resource...we need to conserve it but we're acting like all is [censored] golden....

some interesting stuff here...

http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1249

discuss amongst yourselves...

RB

[riverflush]

Read the article and I'm going with this line as my official position:

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t know what world she will think normal. These experts might be wrong, as many have been before them; perhaps our ingenuity will simply come up with a substitute, and we will laugh at articles like this as we laugh at the Y2K scare.

[/ QUOTE ]

We will come up with a subsitute...

GM, Ford, BP, etc. etc. etc. are already spending billions on substitutes. You know why? Because the market will require it, and these folks will make a profit on it.

We will be fine. Save this post. I'll be back on here in 2012 with my chest out.

[GWB]

Alaska has plenty of oil.

We need it now more than ever.

Kick those Democrat obstructionists out of Congress, amd I will get for us. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/votebush.gif

[natedogg]

The world runs on automobiles. They will find a way to make them run when the oil is gone. They already can. The market will simply demand it once oil hits $100 a barrel.

But that said, oil is plentiful and any "crunch" we feel now is all market forces.

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Alaska has plenty of oil.


[/ QUOTE ]

The most optimistic prediction I've seen says 16 billion barrels in Alaska.

That's less than a year for the world. Or about 800 DAYS for the USA.

So, no, Alaska does not have plenty of oil.

[riverflush]

Alaska or no Alaska - when we run out, we'll power with something else. Humans adapt, humans are resourceful. Things are getting better all the time.

[The once and future king]

we dont need to run out.

As soon as demand exceeds supply by X amount things will be fecked. That could easily happen before a replacement is discovered.

[riverflush]

Certainly. Prices will go WAY up and people will demand a replacement. The market for cheaper power will surge and someone will provide it (and make a profit on it).

We can already use more efficient diesel fuel in passenger cars but don't (U.S. consumers don't need to yet).

We can already power cars by electricity (nobody wants them).

We can already power cars by vegetable oil (nobody needs to).

We will soon be able to power cars by Hydrogen (GM, BP, Ford, etc. etc. spending billions of $$ to make it happen).

We are also exploring multiple other means...the market will dictate which one wins out.

[The once and future king]

There are lots of things for which if technology could provide them there would be a massive demand.

The existence of a demand does immediatly bring the item into existence, it merely stimulates research for that item. No one can predict when that reserarch will lead to new advancements.

Its also not just about consumer demand, our whole economy depends on oil so high oil prices will feck our econmies. Its not just cars that need oil, oil is used in loads of different manufacturing processes and is a component of many vital goods (Plastic for example).

[riverflush]

I agree...I just don't think we'll realize the gloom-and-doom scenarios. They make for good speeches, but reality is usually a whole lot more practical. All I'm saying is that there is so much going on in energy research that nobody on this 2+2 forum could possibly get their hands around it.

Most scientists (and the companies they work for) realize that we will eventually need to move beyond oil, nobody is pretending that it'll last forever.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002295.html#002295

You could stay up all night reading about energy developments, just fire away at Google.

Here's a word to Google: synthetic hydrocarbons

[Six_of_One]

Oil is a finite resource, but there's no point in conserving it. One day, it's going to run out. The world will not truly learn to do without it until it's gone. So, the best thing for all concerned -- and the best thing for the planet -- is simply to use up the oil as fast as possible.

So hey, buy an SUV, you just might save the world.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Alaska or no Alaska - when we run out, we'll power with something else. Humans adapt, humans are resourceful. Things are getting better all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you have all the facts straight. There simply is no sustitution for oil. No other energy source that we know is as versatile as oil. There is not enough of anything to make up for oil.

And probably the biggest problem is that once the marked reacts we will probably be too far down the slope to be able to take apropriate actions.

Yes, humans adapt, humans are resourceful.

The roman empire fell, the Egypt, the Maya, every civilization before ours has fallen, often because the ran out of resources. We are not as special as we would like. But new civilizations has risen after them. Maybe one will rise after ours.

Maybe one day I'll make a full post on the topic.

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
There is not enough of anything to make up for oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just not true.

There are numerous sources of energy that are more abundant than oil: water, wind, light, etc.

Which brings me to this: Most Hyrdrogen power is currently produced using natural gas, but we can also produce hyrdrogen by using an electrical current (by way of hydroelectrical means) to separate water into its components of oxygen and hydrogen. This hydrogen can store, move, and deliver energy in usable form to consumers. Engines that "burn" hydrogen produce almost no pollutants .

There are also scientists exploring the production of hydrogen using certain forms of bacteria (which give off hydrogen when exposed to sunlight).

Again, companies (and the U.S. government) are spending billions on hydrogen research.

And also...in these days of worldwide instant communications and trading, the market "reacts" in real-time. Many, many, many people are concerned about the oil issue, and are already reacting.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
That's just not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid it is.

I will make the effort to put together a serious post about hydrogen, possibly also spilling over to other renewables. I'll post it in a new thread as soon as I'm done. All I ask is for you to read it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[playerfl]

Right On! Didn't you see mad max beyond thunderdome ? Remember that midget guy with the pigs ?

we don't need no oil ! this is 'merica !

[riverflush]

I will read your post. I'm a fair guy.

However, I'm never going to buy into the doomsday scenarios being played up in these touchy oil times. I've done extensive research into alternative fuels as it plays directly into my business interests. There are so many major players involved currently in developing alternatives such as hydrogen, it's no longer a matter of if we will move beyond oil, it's only a matter of what will win the future market. There's a ton of money on the line. Energy companies and auto manufacturers are planning 50 years out. The idea that we've all got our heads buried in the sand on energy is just ridiculous on its face.

This issue directly impacts my bank account. I'm entrenched. Just do a little research into BP's European program...(which should be easy since you're there!)

I think we will see in 25 years that our energy source has gone like this (evolved):

Coal----->Natural Gas----->Hydrogen

BP, Chevron-Texaco, ExxonMobil, Ford, and General Electric are spending $270 million this year on hydrogen research by the top energy scientists at MIT, Princeton, and Stanford.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I'm never going to buy into the doomsday scenarios being played up in these touchy oil times

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless, of course, they come true...


Sorry, couldn't resist /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[riverflush]

YES. I will give you this. If the doomsday scenarios come true, I will buy into them.

ha

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we will see in 25 years that our energy source has gone like this (evolved):

Coal----->Natural Gas----->Hydrogen

[/ QUOTE ]

This one has been bugging me a little. Just to make sure, you do undestand the fundamental difference between the three, right? Coal and NatGas are energy Sources, hydrogen is an energy Carrier. There are no natural reserves of hydrogen around, it has to be made. Either from NatGas (or another hydrocarbon source) or by splitting water. In both cases you loose energy in the conversion.

If we exclude hydrocarbons as source for hydrogen, in any large scale operation (you can just as well use the hydrocarbon directly and get more energy out of it) that leave us with splitting water using electricity. That electricity has to come somewhere from, and that's the one of the problems. Another problem is where to get the water, seawater has to be dezalinased (sp?) before you can use it (costing enormous amounts of energy), and freshwater is already a short resource.

I am working on my argument on why hydrogen will not be the energy "source" of the future. I am convinced that is the case, but I realise I need hard numbers, and that's taking a fair amount of time...