And also Russian scientists began to postulate back in the 1950's that oil is actually created through natural processes in the earth's core. They noticed that some of their wells were actually being topped off over time, and that changed their whole outlook on oil.
Back in the 1970's, American oil companies told Vietnam that their country was little barren of any oil. The Russians came in a few years later and told them the exact opposite. Now Vietnam has some of Asia's most thriving oil fields and wells.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently you weren't obsessed enough:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A handful of people believe oil is actually a renewable resource continually produced by an "abiotic" process deep in the Earth. As emotionally appealing as this theory may be, it ignores most common sense and all scientific fact. While many of the people who believe in this theory consider themselves "mavericks," respected geologists consider them crackpots.
Moreover, the oil companies don't give this theory the slightest bit of credence even though they are more motivated than anybody to find an unlimited source of oil as each company's shareholder value is based largely on how much oil it holds in reserve. Any oil company who wants to make a ridiculous amount of money (which means all of them) could simply find this unlimited source of oil but refuse to bring it to the market. Their stock value would skyrocket as a result of the huge find while they could simultaneously maintain artificial scarcity by not bringing it to the market.
Even if the maverick/crackpot theories of "unlimited oil" are true, they aren't doing us much good out here in the real world as production is declining in pretty much every nation outside the Middle East.
It certainly isn't doing us any good here in the United States. Our domestic oil production peaked in October 1970 at 10 million barrels per day. It has since declined a little bit each year and now stands at about 5 million barrels per day.
If oil is a renewable resource, why isn't it renewing itself here in the good ole' US of A? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm trying to raise awareness for this. The more people that know, the more people who can tell other people and eventually those fears will reach men on Capitol Hill. Oh wait, it already has. And it's not the extreme left expounding this, Republicans are worried about this.
Legat, you also forget that the TRUCKS THAT HAUL ALL OF OUR FOOD from the farms aren't going to run without oil. Not to mention that the Midwest is the largest producer of our food, you think they'd be able to miraculously transport all that food to wherever you live without oil?
Look at the Depression. Farmers had to let their crops sit and rot because there were no trains available to get their goods to market. This is like that, except there won't be any trains period if this continues.
Hydrogen isn't the answer either. As of 2003, the average hydrogen fuel cell costs close to $1,000,000. Unlike other alternatives, hydrogen fuel cells have shown little sign of coming down in price.
Even if the cost is lowered by 98%, placing the price at $20,000 per cell, hydrogen fuel cells will never power more than a handful of cars due to a worldwide shortage of platinum:
A single hydrogen fuel cell requires 20 grams of platinum. If the cells are mass-produced, it may be possible to get the platinum requirement down to 10 grams per cell. The world has 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum reserves. There are approximately 700 million internal combustion engines on the road. Ten grams of platinum per fuel cell x 700 million fuel cells = 7 billion grams of platinum, or practically every gram of platinum in the earth.
Unfortunately, as a recent article in EV World points out, the average fuel cell lasts only 200 hours. Two hundred hours translates into just 12,000 miles, or about one year’s worth of driving at 60 miles per hour. This means all 700 million fuel cells (with 10 grams of platinum in each one) would have to be replaced every single year.
Thus replacing the 700 million oil-powered vehicles on the road with fuel cell-powered vehicles, for only 1 year, would require us to mine every single ounce of platinum currently in the earth and divert all of it for fuel cell construction only.
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+Jul 23 2005, 01:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Jul 23 2005, 01:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sigh....why don't you idiots READ the article? NO seriously, I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "Can't We Just Explore More for Oil?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Refuted, read the article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"What About the Oil Sands in Canada and the Oil Shale in the American West?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Refuted, read the article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "If the Environmentalists Would Get Out of the Way, Can't We Just Drill in ANWR?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Refuted, read the article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "Won't the Market and the Laws of Supply and Demand Address This?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Refuted, read the article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "What About All the Various Alternatives to Oil? Can't We Find Replacements?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "What About Biofuels Such as Ethanol and Biodiesel?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "What About Using Coal to Make Synthetic Oil?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"What About Amazing New Technologies Such As Thermal Depolymerization, Solar Nanotech, Space Based Solar Arrays, and other 'Energy-Miracles'?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"What About Large-Scale Efforts at Conserving Energy or Becoming More Energy Efficient?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty comprehensive list, isn't it? All refuted, read the article.
The only thing they didn't cover was fusion, but I think it was partially addressed in the hydrogen source.
Seriously, please read the article before you make those claims.
Better yet, I'll do it for you. Present a specific argument and I'll show you exactly where in the article it's refuted. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I did read the article. It's analysis is CRAP. It knows NOTHING about science. I said it in the first post of this thread; nessesicity is the mother of all innovation. With the shortfall of oil something else will come!
If you've read the links they've supplemented, they come from credible sources everywhere.
Explain to me why it's not credible and I'll find a link from a valid source explaining how it is credible.
This isn't the only goddamn peak oil website out there. Europe has its own site driven by its top geologists, for example. There are articles on MSNBC, ABC news, practically any respected news website concerning interviews with top scientists explaining the peak oil phenomenon.
Please, just tell me why you think the article is wrong, and maybe I'll find a way to counter your assertion.
Edit:
NGE, simply put, you have to realize that there are no other technologies as energy efficient as oil. Fusion, as the old joke goes, was fifty years away fifty years ago and is fifty years away today. The odds of us perfecting fusion (as it still requires ENORMOUS amounts of energy to stabilize a magnetic field) and then IMPLEMENTING it is like winning the lottery: not going to happen.
NGE, you have not read the article, otherwise you would know that it covers every possible avenue of alternative energy and tells you why they can't do the job. Now, let me give you a summary:
They are expensive. They aren't as energy efficient.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Legat, you also forget that the TRUCKS THAT HAUL ALL OF OUR FOOD from the farms aren't going to run without oil. Not to mention that the Midwest is the largest producer of our food, you think they'd be able to miraculously transport all that food to wherever you live without oil?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You got it. Do you also know why this is so? Because <i>it is cheaper</i> than alternative fuel sources. Look. I am not a freind of windmills or solar power... But there is technology available that is definately capable to satisfy our needs. As soon as oil becomes more cost inefficient, other means will become viable. Take the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid' target='_blank'>Transrapid</a> as an example. It was always deemed to costly because it does require special tracks. Yet it is safer, more silent, more energy efficient, and generally superior to conventional trains. The technology is basically dating back to the early 60s and could have been adabted for cargo transportation at any time as well as pasenger transit. Yet, we have cheap prize flight lines and short range flights between cities instead. In the US... well it make sense to fly from the east coast to the west coast, but is it understandable that a flight from Frankfurt to Munich (about 30 minutes) is almost as cheap as a train ticket? No it is not. It is due to the cheap oil.
By now, the transrapid is being sold to interested countries like China or the Arabic Emirates. Finally. As soon as the oil prizes become high enough, the companies and governments will rethink their strategies. Rapier7, you should rather worry that your administration is failing to see the development and misses to jump on the train in time, rather then exprecting the antichrist to rise from empty oil wells ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> NGE, simply put, you have to realize that there are no other technologies as energy efficient as oil. Fusion, as the old joke goes, was fifty years away fifty years ago and is fifty years away today. The odds of us perfecting fusion (as it still requires ENORMOUS amounts of energy to stabilize a magnetic field) and then IMPLEMENTING it is like winning the lottery: not going to happen.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. There is nothing that prevents us exept ourselves. Now it is you that does not read the links: <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm</a>
This is the first reactor capable of sustained fusion reaction and a much higher energy output than nessesary to sustain the reaction. This could have been done long ago. Economical reasons are the only hindrance. If we were in a world war and fusion reactions would promise to make a good bang, it would have already been done three times over.
the technology also benefits from virtually inexhaustable fuels and much less nuclear waste to deal with (and those have considerable shorter half-life periods ).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hydrogen isn't the answer either. As of 2003, the average hydrogen fuel cell costs close to $1,000,000. Unlike other alternatives, hydrogen fuel cells have shown little sign of coming down in price.
Even if the cost is lowered by 98%, placing the price at $20,000 per cell, hydrogen fuel cells will never power more than a handful of cars due to a worldwide shortage of platinum:
A single hydrogen fuel cell requires 20 grams of platinum. If the cells are mass-produced, it may be possible to get the platinum requirement down to 10 grams per cell. The world has 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum reserves. There are approximately 700 million internal combustion engines on the road. Ten grams of platinum per fuel cell x 700 million fuel cells = 7 billion grams of platinum, or practically every gram of platinum in the earth.
Unfortunately, as a recent article in EV World points out, the average fuel cell lasts only 200 hours. Two hundred hours translates into just 12,000 miles, or about one year’s worth of driving at 60 miles per hour. This means all 700 million fuel cells (with 10 grams of platinum in each one) would have to be replaced every single year.
Thus replacing the 700 million oil-powered vehicles on the road with fuel cell-powered vehicles, for only 1 year, would require us to mine every single ounce of platinum currently in the earth and divert all of it for fuel cell construction only.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure... as if there would be no alternative possible or is already being in in development or even already available. There are a multitude of possible technologies being developed by different teams competing against each other.
If you want some well-founded information about hydrogen fuel... read this: <a href='http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03...drogenMyths.pdf</a>
Look... those technologies are not comparable to the solar-cars of the seventies. They are hybrid systems combining several highly developed technologies that just need the right global circumstances to become economical viable. Those circumstances are high oil prizes. Why do you think there is no major car manufacturing company on the planet that does not develope hydrogen fuel technologies? Because its fun to do? No, because they wait until the time comes when they become economical viable.
Hell, KraussMaffei-Wegmann is even considering the use of a hydrogen fuel cell in future versions of the German MBT Leopard 2 as a silent and/or cruise propulsion....
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited July 2005
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I did read the article. It's analysis is CRAP. It knows NOTHING about science. I said it in the first post of this thread; nessesicity is the mother of all innovation. With the shortfall of oil something else will come! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets use a cliche' to entirely discredit all credible evidence in the article. Yes something will come eventually, the main idea is when and how. What will happen before we implement the discovery etc....
And what exactly do you know about science, any better degree of understanding than the many scientists in the article? What proof do you really have to refute specic arguments. Give some real tangible scientific arguments to back up your claim that "It's analysis is CRAP". Otherwise your just using the same old line people use to try and describe something they know little about.
The article may have good data (I wouldn't know), but it has bad logic. Lets look at the most glaring example.
The article suggests that "peak oil" will occur sometime around 2010-2015. That means oil production will plateau for a few years beyond that, before eventually starting to drop. The worldwide economic meltdown is assumed to hit basically the day after the peak is reached, or at least the day after the world notices we've hit the peak.
Now look at the section on using extra coal power to cover the shortfall. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We use now about twice as much energy from oil as we do from coal, so if you wanted to mine enough coal to replace the missing oil, you’d have to mine it at a much higher rate, not only to replace the oil, but also because the conversion process to oil is extremely inefficient. You’d have to mine it at levels at least five times beyond those we mine now—a coal-mining industry on an absolutely unimaginable scale<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice, all of the sections on possible replacement act as if the world oil supply disappears entirely the day after peak! We don't have to replace ALL of our oil supply with coal (or other sources), just enough to cover the loss in production. So if, say, oil production went down 3% in the next year, coal production would only have to rise by 6% to cover the shortfall, a very reasonable number.
Conversion efficiency is largely irrelevant, because obviously we would start by using the extra coal for those processes that can run just fine by burning coal, and dont need it to be converted into oil. Only after all of those became coal-fueled would we need to start looking at converting coal into oil to cover the rest.
Bad logic, supported by good data, is rampant in that article. That's what makes it <i>seem</i> credible while throwing out rediculous conclusions.
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+Jul 23 2005, 08:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Jul 23 2005, 08:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]The odds of us perfecting fusion (as it still requires ENORMOUS amounts of energy to stabilize a magnetic field) and then IMPLEMENTING it is like winning the lottery: not going to happen.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They said that about humans flying. They said that about crossing the Atlantic in a plane. They said that about the nuclear bomb. They said that about breaking the sound barrier. They said that about advanced microcomputers. They said that about flying to the moon. They said that about transplant surgery. They said that about global networking. There was always somebody sitting there shrieking that it couldn't be done while somebody else just did it. The only thing mankind has consistently failed at is predicting the future, doomsday in particular.
What I don't understand is, while these people gab on and on about what a disaster this is and how its going to bring down idustrialized society, they don't explain how we can fix the problem. Instead of whining about it and making it seem like the apoclypse, why don't they try and encourage alternatives to oil and other sources of energy. Anyhow, I'm not going to panic just yet. I would like to have faith in our world leaders to resolve the issue and keep our booming economy right where it is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm trying to raise awareness for this. The more people that know, the more people who can tell other people and eventually those fears will reach men on Capitol Hill. Oh wait, it already has. And it's not the extreme left expounding this, Republicans are worried about this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait... I thought you wern't scaremongerng?
Plus, this is hardly discussion when the thread starter just keeps yelling "YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK! YOU GET AN F! READ YOUR ARTICLE! THERE IS NO SOLUTION!" to everything brought up.
It's like talking to an oil powered electronic brick wall.
Plus, like stated above, 100% replacement in zero time is not needed. EVERY one of those calculations assumes that EVERY car on the planet would have to be replaced in an instant time. I'm sure that if energy ever rose in cost THAT much that 70% of those people would magically find no need to use a car, or find a means of more public transportation.
Just a small suggestion. Refute the points given by the article, instead of making your own points and having Rapier7 copy and paste its refutal into here. That might make this discussion a bit more interesting...
We <i>are</i> doing that...or at least I am. And some others are actually bringing up evidence to support their claims that fusion and hydrogen technologies have already advanced beyond that foreseen by the article. In fact, the article didn't even <i>mention</i> fusion, let alone refute it as a viable energy source. The section on nuclear power was focused exclusively on Fission power.
Something no one has mentioned in this thread (not sure if it is in the article, I read it ages ago), but could be usefull to the discussion is...
One of the big things with oil is we have the infrastructure in place. Even if we found fifty energy sources that are many times better than oil it would take <i>time</i> to implement them into society, and time is an unknown as we don't know exactly when the oil will run dry.
What the article does not tell us is, that economical viability is the key for any new technology. While fuel is so hiliarously cheap that it is economically more vuiable to buy coal from China and ship it all the way to Europe than exploiting the still quite large remaining sources in Europe, there wont be a viable alternative. Plain and simple.
The article states the following theory:
As soon as the producton is peaking, the oil prize will rise indefinately and thus making economical production more expensive to a point where the production levels cannot be maintained anymore and the economy will decline.
The problem herein is, that as soon as a certain cost level is reached, other, formerly more expensive technologies will kick in and take over. Think of it a dismembered limb. You cannot walk with one leg, so you replace it with a prothetic. Those started of as simple crooks, then we had wooden legs, nowadays we got stabilized titanium prothetics that perfectly mimic the movement of the knee...
This peak event will cause a new rush for developments of alternative fuel and production technologies, which will bring companies that have invested in such technology *in time* (read: now ) way up the stock markets food chain. This will turn the markets upside down for sure and a worldwide economical crisis is quite sure to happen. A new industry will eventually emerge around the replacement of fossile fuels and we will give it a fancy name like the "solar age" or the "fusion age" and put it in line with the "nuclear" "computer" "globalistion" and whatever.
When those republicans spread their apocalyptic terror on their all dark and gloomy websites they are trying to evoke certain fears to gain support for "strategic ressource management" policies, if you ask me.
That is exactly what is happening these days. Every big player on the globe is fetching for the last reserves and you can bet that many people are going to die for nothing until eventually fossile fuels become obsolete or simply aren't available anymore. The conflict in the middle east and international terrorism are a symptom of this development, and may be the catalyst that speed it up.
That is a much worse scenario for some of us, because if the middle east were to burn in revolution, they will still sell their oil, but they will be selective in regards to whom they sell it ... <i>that</i> is something you should worry about as an US citizen ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the big things with oil is we have the infrastructure in place. Even if we found fifty energy sources that are many times better than oil it would take time to implement them into society, and time is an unknown as we don't know exactly when the oil will run dry.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats the point. We (read: the companies) will not wait until oil runs dry. It is enough that the prizes will rise dramatically so the replacement will kick in. It is like the mechanisation or the computerisation. It was not done at once. It was a calculation at what point it will be more efficient to invest the large sum nessesary to replace the workers with robots and when it will become nessesary because the competitors are doing the same.
Besides, I would like to direct you at this <a href='http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf' target='_blank'>essay</a>. Read Myth#5 if you have any questions about the distribution ifrastructure nessesary for hydrogene gas.
Refusing to consider something because its not currently viable is silly. Do you have any idea how absolutely impractical every single one of our current technologys was 30+ years after its conception?
Oil ressources are infact a problem, and the mere fact that its bound to be a very finite ressource has effects on the market situation already - but solutions very definitely exist, some blatantly simple and others still just pipedreams. Take a peak at the chemistry behind what he cites for oil-dependent products (the transportational argument he makes is retarded - that you're going to have to switch transportation methods is so painfully obvious, and yet we already have the means especially in bulk transportation).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Refusing to consider something because its not currently viable is silly. Do you have any idea how absolutely impractical every single one of our current technologys was 30+ years after its conception?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely.
As for Rapier7 claim of hydrogen fuel cells would require platinum and thus are not viable for large scale replacement of conventional fuels:
Quote from the article:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A single hydrogen fuel cell requires 20 grams of platinum. If the cells are mass-produced, it may be possible to get the platinum requirement down to 10 grams per cell. The world has 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum reserves. There are approximately 700 million internal combustion engines on the road. Ten grams of platinum per fuel cell x 700 million fuel cells = 7 billion grams of platinum, or practically every gram of platinum in the earth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This technology is ready for production, as the fuel cells used in the Type 212 submarine AIP drive is a PEM type fuel cell. All they require is graphite and carbon, which are plentiful and can be synthesised. The catalyst is made of systhetic polymers. the goal of this reseach is indeed to find viable alternatives to lower the production cost of fuel cells and find materials that are easier to aquire and have a longer live span.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What I don't understand is, while these people gab on and on about what a disaster this is and how its going to bring down idustrialized society, they don't explain how we can fix the problem. Instead of whining about it and making it seem like the apoclypse, why don't they try and encourage alternatives to oil and other sources of energy. Anyhow, I'm not going to panic just yet. I would like to have faith in our world leaders to resolve the issue and keep our booming economy right where it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because people aren't interested in solutions, they're interested in problems. Do you realize how much money this man is making screaming about our impending doom? Compare that to the amount of money that the guys who are out there working their sorry butts every day to find solutions make by scraping up what little federal funding and private donations they can get. It's a sad tale, but it's the truth.
Instead of spouting nightmarish crap, why not spread the word about Focus Fusion, a potentially groundbreaking form of energy? Why not get interested and dream of the possibilities that will be brought to our world by these new forms of energy? We should be pushing on them, instead of standing on a soapbox crying on about the damned state of civilization.
No. Lets say we really peaked oil without solution.
civilization has been continuing without electricty, oil, coal or rapier for 7000 years at least and it would be the end when we lose the black thing? perhaps we may not get use to the old 19 century immediately, or half the world population die due to famine, still civilization wont end because of this silly black liquid.
Nuclear War, thats what i concern a lot more, than electricty.
It is not even remotely realistic that the peak event would cause an inevitable collapse of modern industrial society.
In theory those doomspellers do of course have a point. However their claim that alternatives are not ready to fill the gap is the weakness of this humbug.
The sources they provide about the state of development are outdated at best. I have already proven wrong two of their claims about energy sources they describe as not viable (fusion and hydrogen) and it took me about 10 minutes of googling.
As Illuminex has already pointed out, those people are making money with fears everyone has. Just look at the design of the webpage and you clearly see how they operate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Honda motors will save us all, you watch ^_^<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I am a big fan and enthusiastic owner of a Honda and in general like Japanese cars, I have to disappoint you... Its going to be BMW that saves earth! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You don't need a fuel cell to convert hydrogen to useable power, either. You can burn it, too. Just like regular old gasoline. BMW has a car that does.
Personally, I was hoping for a Earth Doomsday via one of those magnetic pole switches...a massive global EMP wave will wipe out all electronics followed by intense weather related catasrophes...it happened before, and I think the Earth is due for another pole switch soon...
I've read the article, some of you are thinking that human existence will <b>DIE OUT</b>. This isn't what the article says, and it doesn't say anything about all of us becoming barbarians either. Existence after this stuff supposedly happens won't be too bad, it will be de-centralized and require us to work hard. Green methods wll become very important after this happens too. No global connections, but what the hell, we were able to live before the Industrialization. Think of it as the Romans + Modern day technology. Hopefully this will clear up some confusions as to whether this a "doomsday prophecy" or not...
Now about the issue itself, I think the article has some pretty valid points, I don't think it isn't too far off from what will eventually happen. What I don't like about it is how it claims that there are absolutely no technological solutions. I'm sure in the near future prepatory action will happen to soften the impact too though. Eventually new technology will be developed, remember that technology increases exponentially, alot can happen in five years...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hopefully this will clear up some confusions as to whether this a "doomsday prophecy" or not...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ahem... what you describe very well would fit the description of "doomsday". I think you have no imagination what such a loss of technology would mean to human society. Such a large scale decline of the overal standard of living would not and never go quiet and peacefully. Hell would brake loose. Plain and simple. Such an event would create something historians call "dark age".
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Jul 25 2005, 04:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jul 25 2005, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hopefully this will clear up some confusions as to whether this a "doomsday prophecy" or not...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ahem... what you describe very well would fit the description of "doomsday". I think you have no imagination what such a loss of technology would mean to human society. Such a large scale decline of the overal standard of living would not and never go quiet and peacefully. Hell would brake loose. Plain and simple. Such an event would create something historians call "dark age". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dark Ages get shorter and shorter with time, due to how much faster our world works. Dark Ages have used to last hundreds of years; the last "dark age" that occurred world wide was in the 1930's (I would call a decade long period of worldwide economic depression a "dark age").
Dark Ages are actually healthy for us humans. They typically "weed out" the weakest parts of human society and culture, and allow for far more exponential growth. I'd say we are headed for another worldwide economic downturn fairly soon, as soon as it becomes clear to everyone that we can no longer have an oil driven world. So, as the world economy changes from rather centrailized energy and becomes hopefully decentralized, there will be some nasty farts, burps, and other smelly things economically, as the oil empires begin to change or die off.
I do believe that this guy's simply making a healthy, worldwide growing pain into an exaggerated money making business.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And also Russian scientists began to postulate back in the 1950's that oil is actually created through natural processes in the earth's core. They noticed that some of their wells were actually being topped off over time, and that changed their whole outlook on oil.
Back in the 1970's, American oil companies told Vietnam that their country was little barren of any oil. The Russians came in a few years later and told them the exact opposite. Now Vietnam has some of Asia's most thriving oil fields and wells.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently you weren't obsessed enough:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
A handful of people believe oil is actually a renewable resource continually produced by an "abiotic" process deep in the Earth. As emotionally appealing as this theory may be, it ignores most common sense and all scientific fact. While many of the people who believe in this theory consider themselves "mavericks," respected geologists consider them crackpots.
Moreover, the oil companies don't give this theory the slightest bit of credence even though they are more motivated than anybody to find an unlimited source of oil as each company's shareholder value is based largely on how much oil it holds in reserve. Any oil company who wants to make a ridiculous amount of money (which means all of them) could simply find this unlimited source of oil but refuse to bring it to the market. Their stock value would skyrocket as a result of the huge find while they could simultaneously maintain artificial scarcity by not bringing it to the market.
Even if the maverick/crackpot theories of "unlimited oil" are true, they aren't doing us much good out here in the real world as production is declining in pretty much every nation outside the Middle East.
It certainly isn't doing us any good here in the United States. Our domestic oil production peaked in October 1970 at 10 million barrels per day. It has since declined a little bit each year and now stands at about 5 million barrels per day.
If oil is a renewable resource, why isn't it renewing itself here in the good ole' US of A? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html' target='_blank'>http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html</a>
<a href='http://www.energybulletin.net/2423.html' target='_blank'>http://www.energybulletin.net/2423.html</a>
I'm trying to raise awareness for this. The more people that know, the more people who can tell other people and eventually those fears will reach men on Capitol Hill. Oh wait, it already has. And it's not the extreme left expounding this, Republicans are worried about this.
Legat, you also forget that the TRUCKS THAT HAUL ALL OF OUR FOOD from the farms aren't going to run without oil. Not to mention that the Midwest is the largest producer of our food, you think they'd be able to miraculously transport all that food to wherever you live without oil?
Look at the Depression. Farmers had to let their crops sit and rot because there were no trains available to get their goods to market. This is like that, except there won't be any trains period if this continues.
Oh, and concerning your precious fuel cells...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Hydrogen isn't the answer either. As of 2003, the average hydrogen fuel cell costs close to $1,000,000. Unlike other alternatives, hydrogen fuel cells have shown little sign of coming down in price.
Even if the cost is lowered by 98%, placing the price at $20,000 per cell, hydrogen fuel cells will never power more than a handful of cars due to a worldwide shortage of platinum:
A single hydrogen fuel cell requires 20 grams of platinum. If the cells are mass-produced, it may be possible to get the platinum requirement down to 10 grams per cell. The world has 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum reserves. There are approximately 700 million internal combustion engines on the road. Ten grams of platinum per fuel cell x 700 million fuel cells = 7 billion grams of platinum, or practically every gram of platinum in the earth.
Unfortunately, as a recent article in EV World points out, the average fuel cell lasts only 200 hours. Two hundred hours translates into just 12,000 miles, or about one year’s worth of driving at 60 miles per hour. This means all 700 million fuel cells (with 10 grams of platinum in each one) would have to be replaced every single year.
Thus replacing the 700 million oil-powered vehicles on the road with fuel cell-powered vehicles, for only 1 year, would require us to mine every single ounce of platinum currently in the earth and divert all of it for fuel cell construction only.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"Can't We Just Explore More for Oil?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Refuted, read the article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"What About the Oil Sands in Canada and the Oil Shale in the American West?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Refuted, read the article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"If the Environmentalists Would Get Out
of the Way, Can't We Just Drill in ANWR?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Refuted, read the article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"Won't the Market and the Laws of
Supply and Demand Address This?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Refuted, read the article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"What About All the Various Alternatives
to Oil? Can't We Find Replacements?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"What About Green Alternatives like
Solar, Wind, Wave, and Geothermal?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"What About the Hydrogen Economy?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"What About Nuclear Energy?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"What About Biofuels Such
as Ethanol and Biodiesel?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"What About Using Coal
to Make Synthetic Oil?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"Can't We Use a Combination of
the Alternatives to Replace Oil?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"What About Amazing New Technologies Such As Thermal Depolymerization, Solar Nanotech, Space Based Solar Arrays, and other 'Energy-Miracles'?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"What About Hybrids and
Super Fuel Efficient Cars?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"What About Large-Scale Efforts at Conserving Energy or Becoming More Energy Efficient?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty comprehensive list, isn't it? All refuted, read the article.
The only thing they didn't cover was fusion, but I think it was partially addressed in the hydrogen source.
Seriously, please read the article before you make those claims.
Better yet, I'll do it for you. Present a specific argument and I'll show you exactly where in the article it's refuted. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did read the article. It's analysis is CRAP. It knows NOTHING about science. I said it in the first post of this thread; nessesicity is the mother of all innovation. With the shortfall of oil something else will come!
Explain to me why it's not credible and I'll find a link from a valid source explaining how it is credible.
This isn't the only goddamn peak oil website out there. Europe has its own site driven by its top geologists, for example. There are articles on MSNBC, ABC news, practically any respected news website concerning interviews with top scientists explaining the peak oil phenomenon.
Please, just tell me why you think the article is wrong, and maybe I'll find a way to counter your assertion.
Edit:
NGE, simply put, you have to realize that there are no other technologies as energy efficient as oil. Fusion, as the old joke goes, was fifty years away fifty years ago and is fifty years away today. The odds of us perfecting fusion (as it still requires ENORMOUS amounts of energy to stabilize a magnetic field) and then IMPLEMENTING it is like winning the lottery: not going to happen.
NGE, you have not read the article, otherwise you would know that it covers every possible avenue of alternative energy and tells you why they can't do the job. Now, let me give you a summary:
They are expensive.
They aren't as energy efficient.
You got it. Do you also know why this is so? Because <i>it is cheaper</i> than alternative fuel sources. Look. I am not a freind of windmills or solar power... But there is technology available that is definately capable to satisfy our needs.
As soon as oil becomes more cost inefficient, other means will become viable.
Take the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid' target='_blank'>Transrapid</a> as an example.
It was always deemed to costly because it does require special tracks. Yet it is safer, more silent, more energy efficient, and generally superior to conventional trains. The technology is basically dating back to the early 60s and could have been adabted for cargo transportation at any time as well as pasenger transit.
Yet, we have cheap prize flight lines and short range flights between cities instead. In the US... well it make sense to fly from the east coast to the west coast, but is it understandable that a flight from Frankfurt to Munich (about 30 minutes) is almost as cheap as a train ticket? No it is not. It is due to the cheap oil.
By now, the transrapid is being sold to interested countries like China or the Arabic Emirates. Finally. As soon as the oil prizes become high enough, the companies and governments will rethink their strategies.
Rapier7, you should rather worry that your administration is failing to see the development and misses to jump on the train in time, rather then exprecting the antichrist to rise from empty oil wells ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
NGE, simply put, you have to realize that there are no other technologies as energy efficient as oil. Fusion, as the old joke goes, was fifty years away fifty years ago and is fifty years away today. The odds of us perfecting fusion (as it still requires ENORMOUS amounts of energy to stabilize a magnetic field) and then IMPLEMENTING it is like winning the lottery: not going to happen.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. There is nothing that prevents us exept ourselves. Now it is you that does not read the links:
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm</a>
This is the first reactor capable of sustained fusion reaction and a much higher energy output than nessesary to sustain the reaction. This could have been done long ago. Economical reasons are the only hindrance. If we were in a world war and fusion reactions would promise to make a good bang, it would have already been done three times over.
the technology also benefits from virtually inexhaustable fuels and much less nuclear waste to deal with (and those have considerable shorter half-life periods ).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hydrogen isn't the answer either. As of 2003, the average hydrogen fuel cell costs close to $1,000,000. Unlike other alternatives, hydrogen fuel cells have shown little sign of coming down in price.
Even if the cost is lowered by 98%, placing the price at $20,000 per cell, hydrogen fuel cells will never power more than a handful of cars due to a worldwide shortage of platinum:
A single hydrogen fuel cell requires 20 grams of platinum. If the cells are mass-produced, it may be possible to get the platinum requirement down to 10 grams per cell. The world has 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum reserves. There are approximately 700 million internal combustion engines on the road. Ten grams of platinum per fuel cell x 700 million fuel cells = 7 billion grams of platinum, or practically every gram of platinum in the earth.
Unfortunately, as a recent article in EV World points out, the average fuel cell lasts only 200 hours. Two hundred hours translates into just 12,000 miles, or about one year’s worth of driving at 60 miles per hour. This means all 700 million fuel cells (with 10 grams of platinum in each one) would have to be replaced every single year.
Thus replacing the 700 million oil-powered vehicles on the road with fuel cell-powered vehicles, for only 1 year, would require us to mine every single ounce of platinum currently in the earth and divert all of it for fuel cell construction only.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure... as if there would be no alternative possible or is already being in in development or even already available. There are a multitude of possible technologies being developed by different teams competing against each other.
If you want some well-founded information about hydrogen fuel... read this:
<a href='http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03...drogenMyths.pdf</a>
Look... those technologies are not comparable to the solar-cars of the seventies. They are hybrid systems combining several highly developed technologies that just need the right global circumstances to become economical viable. Those circumstances are high oil prizes. Why do you think there is no major car manufacturing company on the planet that does not develope hydrogen fuel technologies? Because its fun to do?
No, because they wait until the time comes when they become economical viable.
Hell, KraussMaffei-Wegmann is even considering the use of a hydrogen fuel cell in future versions of the German MBT Leopard 2 as a silent and/or cruise propulsion....
---edit---
Some typo. Gnah ... I'm short on time, sorry.
Lets use a cliche' to entirely discredit all credible evidence in the article. Yes something will come eventually, the main idea is when and how. What will happen before we implement the discovery etc....
And what exactly do you know about science, any better degree of understanding than the many scientists in the article? What proof do you really have to refute specic arguments. Give some real tangible scientific arguments to back up your claim that "It's analysis is CRAP". Otherwise your just using the same old line people use to try and describe something they know little about.
The article suggests that "peak oil" will occur sometime around 2010-2015. That means oil production will plateau for a few years beyond that, before eventually starting to drop. The worldwide economic meltdown is assumed to hit basically the day after the peak is reached, or at least the day after the world notices we've hit the peak.
Now look at the section on using extra coal power to cover the shortfall.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We use now about twice as much energy from oil as we do from coal, so if you wanted to mine enough coal to replace the missing oil, you’d have to mine it at a much higher rate, not only to replace the oil, but also because the conversion
process to oil is extremely inefficient. You’d have to mine it at levels at least five times beyond those we mine now—a coal-mining industry on an absolutely unimaginable scale<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice, all of the sections on possible replacement act as if the world oil supply disappears entirely the day after peak! We don't have to replace ALL of our oil supply with coal (or other sources), just enough to cover the loss in production. So if, say, oil production went down 3% in the next year, coal production would only have to rise by 6% to cover the shortfall, a very reasonable number.
Conversion efficiency is largely irrelevant, because obviously we would start by using the extra coal for those processes that can run just fine by burning coal, and dont need it to be converted into oil. Only after all of those became coal-fueled would we need to start looking at converting coal into oil to cover the rest.
Bad logic, supported by good data, is rampant in that article. That's what makes it <i>seem</i> credible while throwing out rediculous conclusions.
They said that about humans flying. They said that about crossing the Atlantic in a plane. They said that about the nuclear bomb. They said that about breaking the sound barrier. They said that about advanced microcomputers. They said that about flying to the moon. They said that about transplant surgery. They said that about global networking. There was always somebody sitting there shrieking that it couldn't be done while somebody else just did it. The only thing mankind has consistently failed at is predicting the future, doomsday in particular.
Wait... I thought you wern't scaremongerng?
Plus, this is hardly discussion when the thread starter just keeps yelling "YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK! YOU GET AN F! READ YOUR ARTICLE! THERE IS NO SOLUTION!" to everything brought up.
It's like talking to an oil powered electronic brick wall.
Plus, like stated above, 100% replacement in zero time is not needed. EVERY one of those calculations assumes that EVERY car on the planet would have to be replaced in an instant time. I'm sure that if energy ever rose in cost THAT much that 70% of those people would magically find no need to use a car, or find a means of more public transportation.
One of the big things with oil is we have the infrastructure in place. Even if we found fifty energy sources that are many times better than oil it would take <i>time</i> to implement them into society, and time is an unknown as we don't know exactly when the oil will run dry.
Plain and simple.
The article states the following theory:
As soon as the producton is peaking, the oil prize will rise indefinately and thus making economical production more expensive to a point where the production levels cannot be maintained anymore and the economy will decline.
The problem herein is, that as soon as a certain cost level is reached, other, formerly more expensive technologies will kick in and take over.
Think of it a dismembered limb. You cannot walk with one leg, so you replace it with a prothetic. Those started of as simple crooks, then we had wooden legs, nowadays we got stabilized titanium prothetics that perfectly mimic the movement of the knee...
This peak event will cause a new rush for developments of alternative fuel and production technologies, which will bring companies that have invested in such technology *in time* (read: now ) way up the stock markets food chain. This will turn the markets upside down for sure and a worldwide economical crisis is quite sure to happen.
A new industry will eventually emerge around the replacement of fossile fuels and we will give it a fancy name like the "solar age" or the "fusion age" and put it in line with the "nuclear" "computer" "globalistion" and whatever.
When those republicans spread their apocalyptic terror on their all dark and gloomy websites they are trying to evoke certain fears to gain support for "strategic ressource management" policies, if you ask me.
That is exactly what is happening these days. Every big player on the globe is fetching for the last reserves and you can bet that many people are going to die for nothing until eventually fossile fuels become obsolete or simply aren't available anymore. The conflict in the middle east and international terrorism are a symptom of this development, and may be the catalyst that speed it up.
That is a much worse scenario for some of us, because if the middle east were to burn in revolution, they will still sell their oil, but they will be selective in regards to whom they sell it ... <i>that</i> is something you should worry about as an US citizen ...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the big things with oil is we have the infrastructure in place. Even if we found fifty energy sources that are many times better than oil it would take time to implement them into society, and time is an unknown as we don't know exactly when the oil will run dry.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats the point. We (read: the companies) will not wait until oil runs dry. It is enough that the prizes will rise dramatically so the replacement will kick in.
It is like the mechanisation or the computerisation. It was not done at once.
It was a calculation at what point it will be more efficient to invest the large sum nessesary to replace the workers with robots and when it will become nessesary because the competitors are doing the same.
Besides, I would like to direct you at this <a href='http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf' target='_blank'>essay</a>.
Read Myth#5 if you have any questions about the distribution ifrastructure nessesary for hydrogene gas.
Oil ressources are infact a problem, and the mere fact that its bound to be a very finite ressource has effects on the market situation already - but solutions very definitely exist, some blatantly simple and others still just pipedreams. Take a peak at the chemistry behind what he cites for oil-dependent products (the transportational argument he makes is retarded - that you're going to have to switch transportation methods is so painfully obvious, and yet we already have the means especially in bulk transportation).
Absolutely.
As for Rapier7 claim of hydrogen fuel cells would require platinum and thus are not viable for large scale replacement of conventional fuels:
Quote from the article:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A single hydrogen fuel cell requires 20 grams of platinum. If the cells are mass-produced, it may be possible to get the platinum requirement down to 10 grams per cell. The world has 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum reserves. There are approximately 700 million internal combustion engines on the road. Ten grams of platinum per fuel cell x 700 million fuel cells = 7 billion grams of platinum, or practically every gram of platinum in the earth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=1353' target='_blank'>http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=1353</a>
<a href='http://www.princeton.edu/~benziger/PEMFC.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.princeton.edu/~benziger/PEMFC.pdf</a>
This technology is ready for production, as the fuel cells used in the Type 212 submarine AIP drive is a PEM type fuel cell. All they require is graphite and carbon, which are plentiful and can be synthesised. The catalyst is made of systhetic polymers. the goal of this reseach is indeed to find viable alternatives to lower the production cost of fuel cells and find materials that are easier to aquire and have a longer live span.
What I don't understand is, while these people gab on and on about what a disaster this is and how its going to bring down idustrialized society, they don't explain how we can fix the problem. Instead of whining about it and making it seem like the apoclypse, why don't they try and encourage alternatives to oil and other sources of energy. Anyhow, I'm not going to panic just yet. I would like to have faith in our world leaders to resolve the issue and keep our booming economy right where it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because people aren't interested in solutions, they're interested in problems. Do you realize how much money this man is making screaming about our impending doom? Compare that to the amount of money that the guys who are out there working their sorry butts every day to find solutions make by scraping up what little federal funding and private donations they can get. It's a sad tale, but it's the truth.
Instead of spouting nightmarish crap, why not spread the word about Focus Fusion, a potentially groundbreaking form of energy? Why not get interested and dream of the possibilities that will be brought to our world by these new forms of energy? We should be pushing on them, instead of standing on a soapbox crying on about the damned state of civilization.
No.
Lets say we really peaked oil without solution.
civilization has been continuing without electricty, oil, coal or rapier for 7000 years at least and it would be the end when we lose the black thing? perhaps we may not get use to the old 19 century immediately, or half the world population die due to famine, still civilization wont end because of this silly black liquid.
Nuclear War, thats what i concern a lot more, than electricty.
In theory those doomspellers do of course have a point. However their claim that alternatives are not ready to fill the gap is the weakness of this humbug.
The sources they provide about the state of development are outdated at best. I have already proven wrong two of their claims about energy sources they describe as not viable (fusion and hydrogen) and it took me about 10 minutes of googling.
As Illuminex has already pointed out, those people are making money with fears everyone has. Just look at the design of the webpage and you clearly see how they operate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Honda motors will save us all, you watch ^_^<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I am a big fan and enthusiastic owner of a Honda and in general like Japanese cars, I have to disappoint you... Its going to be BMW that saves earth! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I've read the article, some of you are thinking that human existence will <b>DIE OUT</b>. This isn't what the article says, and it doesn't say anything about all of us becoming barbarians either. Existence after this stuff supposedly happens won't be too bad, it will be de-centralized and require us to work hard. Green methods wll become very important after this happens too. No global connections, but what the hell, we were able to live before the Industrialization. Think of it as the Romans + Modern day technology. Hopefully this will clear up some confusions as to whether this a "doomsday prophecy" or not...
Now about the issue itself, I think the article has some pretty valid points, I don't think it isn't too far off from what will eventually happen. What I don't like about it is how it claims that there are absolutely no technological solutions. I'm sure in the near future prepatory action will happen to soften the impact too though. Eventually new technology will be developed, remember that technology increases exponentially, alot can happen in five years...
ahem... what you describe very well would fit the description of "doomsday". I think you have no imagination what such a loss of technology would mean to human society. Such a large scale decline of the overal standard of living would not and never go quiet and peacefully. Hell would brake loose. Plain and simple. Such an event would create something historians call "dark age".
ahem... what you describe very well would fit the description of "doomsday". I think you have no imagination what such a loss of technology would mean to human society. Such a large scale decline of the overal standard of living would not and never go quiet and peacefully. Hell would brake loose. Plain and simple. Such an event would create something historians call "dark age". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dark Ages get shorter and shorter with time, due to how much faster our world works. Dark Ages have used to last hundreds of years; the last "dark age" that occurred world wide was in the 1930's (I would call a decade long period of worldwide economic depression a "dark age").
Dark Ages are actually healthy for us humans. They typically "weed out" the weakest parts of human society and culture, and allow for far more exponential growth. I'd say we are headed for another worldwide economic downturn fairly soon, as soon as it becomes clear to everyone that we can no longer have an oil driven world. So, as the world economy changes from rather centrailized energy and becomes hopefully decentralized, there will be some nasty farts, burps, and other smelly things economically, as the oil empires begin to change or die off.
I do believe that this guy's simply making a healthy, worldwide growing pain into an exaggerated money making business.