http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/
Printable View
The Road Warrior was awesome. I would love to live in a
post apocalyptic Australia.
And this is why I am moving to a farm in canada next year.
Good video.
Cooooorn!
You can drink gasohol right?
I still don't think any of this matters since peak discovery was 40 years ago
Peak discovery, that doesn't mean production peaked. Right now discovery is sloping down and we're pretty much at a production peak. Basicly, we're ........ed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow257
this sucks indeed. Hurry up ethanol.
Understood, but why if the concern is a lack of supply are we looking at a statistic that is driven, at least for now, by demand? What matters is the total amount of known petrol that can be relatively cheaply removed from the ground. In 1981 demand outstripped new supply for the first time. The effects weren't felt because of reserves, but that's significant nonetheless. Adding to that that the stuff at the bottom is hardest to get out, I don't see why it matters if "peak oil" was 2000 or is 2010, 2030 or even '50.Quote:
Peak discovery, that doesn't mean production peaked.
E85 is probably the solution, but if we aren't careful we'll run out of the G15 before people get he message.
Great resource to learn something about today's oil.
Either way, once all the oil's been burned out, well start using other resources and when they are done well just keep consuming everything until we start growing humans and use their energy (-- The Matrix)?
It doesn't matter really, it just gives a general time frame of when our economy will start to crash IF we don't do anything about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow257
It's not the solution but will certainly delay whatever is to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow257
You know, some scientists figure that oil reserves are actually increasing.
They are.
And some think global warming is a hoax. It doesn't really matter though - getting off of oil is a Good Thing(TM). It's safer using ethanol :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kermit
Well from a cost perspective, I definitely agree that getting off oil is a very good thing. It some cases, it costs too much to drive anymore. The irony is that when a decent, plentiful alternative goes mainstream, the bigwigs at the oil companies will probably have their fingers in it.
Shell Sugar Cane, Mobil Ethanol, ChevronSunPower and TexacoScrewThemChevron.
> Since energy is never destroyed but takes on different form, there is still an unlimited supply; so we are mainly technologically challenged.
This is a really stupid statement. True, the energy from burning gasoline isn't technically "lost", but it's converted into forms that will never be recoverable. Sure, if you can figure out a way to make an engine that runs off excess heat and exhaust you'll get some of it back, but there'll still be a net loss in the system, because there's energy being transferred from the car to the road, so it can, y'know, move.
I'm wondering, let's say ethanol takes off sometime in the future, will there be a way to convert current cars that aren't able to use it so that they can?
OK, well when the experts figure out a way to make a car move without energy, give me a call.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDofRockyView
edit: I suppose they could hook a huge energy sucking device up to the roads.
*Somebody* hasn't seen that episode of The Simpsons whereQuote:
Originally Posted by Govtcheez
Lisa builds a perpetual motion machine for her science fair.
magnets dude, line the roads with magnets, + magnets...Quote:
Originally Posted by Govtcheez
the wheels will be made with +magnets as well.
get it?
And the (I'm assuming) electromagnets are powered how? No matter how you look at it, if something is moving, there's a loss of energy to your supply system. I don't care how minute it is, you don't have "inifinte" energy to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by indigo0086
I was joking.
well you know whatQuote:
Originally Posted by indigo0086
NOTHING that's what
That's communist talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDofRockyView
they mustn't have a tv because that damn episode is on all the timeQuote:
Originally Posted by ethic
Ethanol is not enough by itself:
http://www.physorg.com/news71833070.html
Important questions to prevent ethanol abuse:
1) What about the possibility of another Dust Bowl from planting the same crop over and over and over...? Remember that we don't have dust bowls because of (petrolium based) fertilizers.
2) What are *we* going to eat? Vehicles "eat" more food than humans (especially SUVs that inspire the phrase "stupid Americans")
If you want a national model for ethanol, check out Brazil:
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050517-...ess/index.html
But keep in mind that America is much bigger than Brazil and has a much larger number of vehicles. Also, Brazil has been working on this for THIRTY YEARS.
If you want an alternative fuel for vehicles, try electric:
http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/main.htm
But this is only one problem of Peak Oil. The least important one I should say. Instead of idiotic discussions about alternative fuels, why aren't you people discussing SURVIVAL.
Because petroleum touches EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of our lives:
Food:
1) farming equipment
2) petroleum-based fertilizers
3) petroleum-based pesticides
4) food processing plants
Water:
1) distribution machinery
2) purification machinery
Pharmaceuticals:
1) petroleum-based poisons... uh, I mean *medications*
Everything else:
1) one word: plastic
This simple list doesn't even begin to cover everything.
mw
Cool! We're currently studying some semi-exotic electricity generation. If we get results, I'll inevitably post them.
We're also interested in water extraction (from air, ground, etc). "Air" extraction still seems pretty far-fetched, but it's the 21st century so we're allowed to consider it. Electricity will make things easier.
I think electricity can also be used as a fertilizer, but I have no information on that yet.
I'm not too interested in sustainable transportation at this point. To be honest, I really hate cars. They cost too d*** much.
mw
But they're still driving instead of walking.
mw
Most people that live in major cities take public transportation to work. When I live in New York City, I don't have a car. I take the subway everywhere. Generally, all the cars in the city are from the surrounding area. From where I am in New Jersey, it takes me over an hour to drive into the city. That's going at a good speed, as well, around 60mph(96kph). Walking it would take all day.
That's cause the US protects the land in which their oil reserves lay.
Most Americans also don't know that Canada is their biggest hockey puck supplier.
I can take the bus to work here in miami, but really miami sucks for any sort of long distance mass transportation like in new york or england or japan. If you need to get on the other side of 1-95 It'll take a while.
The US makes more ethanol than BrazilQuote:
But keep in mind that America is much bigger than Brazil and has a much larger number of vehicles. Also, Brazil has been working on this for THIRTY YEARS.
It would be great if we ran out of petrol just to get rid of those two idiotic inventionsQuote:
2) petroleum-based fertilizers
3) petroleum-based pesticides
If I can't have some form of petroleum on my fresh fruits and veggies, I'm not eating.
Give me petrol or give me constipation.
You obviously haven't done your research, because it's not that simple:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow257
1) There are different grades of ethanol being produced, and these grades are different for US/Brazil. So to start off with, comparing ethanol production like that is apples vs oranges.
2) There are different ways to create ethanol. I'm sure we probably beat them in corn ethanol production. But I saw a figure of them making over 3 times the sugar cane ethanol that we do.
3) Ethanol sucks. Electric rules.
4) None of this matters. Brazil will take care of themselves.
A noble statement. But what are you going to do when they *do* run out? Starve? This is not something that's happening 20 years from now (see the very first link I posted in this thread).Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow257
mw
3) Ethanol sucks. Electric rules.Quote:
You obviously haven't done your research, because it's not that simple:
Riiighttt :rolleyes:
Didn't say they wouldn't. I was making the point that having Brazil as a model for the US is dumb because it's not apples to apples.Quote:
4) None of this matters. Brazil will take care of themselves.
I'm not sure, but I think it was total productionQuote:
2) There are different ways to create ethanol. I'm sure we probably beat them in corn ethanol production. But I saw a figure of them making over 3 times the sugar cane ethanol that we do.
I got really interested in ethanol distillation a couple months ago when I tried to make some. It didn't end up working out because the switch grass I planted didn't grow
where do you think electricity comes from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionmane
Electricity in the US mainly comes from burning coal. There's a couple of other sources: nuclear, hydro (water power), solar, wind and biomass (trash, etc). Ethanol is not used in power generation because it's too expensive.
No facts? Just rolling your eyes? Electricity costs less as a fuel and the electric car requires less maintenance. Also, there are no emmissions of any kind. The only drawback is the initial conversion cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow257
It's great to see you're doing something. Did you try again? What else are you doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow257
mw
I've decided to do something about the diminishing oil natural reserves too.
I stopped being able to pay my car loan.
Quote:
Electricity in the US mainly comes from burning coal.
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.htmlQuote:
Also, there are no emmissions of any kind.
Unless there is some major solar innovation, US power will probably go to mainly nucleur sometime in the future (just my speculation, I don't have facts). Hydro and wind both are area specific, and the way the power grid works that makes wide scale use prohibitive.
Hydroelectricy is the way to go. It is extremely effecient and does not need any supplies (coal, uranium). Unfortunatly it may not be as accessible to land that is not right on a huge body of water.
Nuclear will not work, mostly because of the lack of uranium and its cost. Only First world countries will be able to afford it and the amount of uranium we have right now will only last us about 30 years at that burning rate.
Uranium is not like petrol, very little is used. The cost and expertise needed to make a reactor are quite high, but people seem pretty willing to share knowledge if it means less pollution and gas demand. There will also be multinational cooperation to mitigate the cost. As far as running costs, they're quite a bit lower then typical coal plants. Uranium itself costs less per kilo than a barrel of crude. It is also very elastic to price changes that would throw other fuel types to chaos. We really don't know how much uranium there is in the crust, but it seems limitless (I know people said that about petrol too, but it really isn't the same). I think the holdup now is reluctance to spend the cash on new plants, and no agreement over what to do with the waste...Quote:
Nuclear will not work, mostly because of the lack of uranium and its cost. Only First world countries will be able to afford it and the amount of uranium we have right now will only last us about 30 years at that burning rate.
Actually, yes we have very limited uranium. I can pull up some studies if you want, the only one i remember of the top of my head is http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.netQuote:
Originally Posted by MadCow257
Nuclear Fusion Plants will solve everything.
(Except how to make a Nuclear Fusion Plant)
"These facts come from a 1983 article by Bernard Cohen."
1983.
Are you actually suggesting that a person much smarter than you who says essentially, "Nuclear energy, assuming breeder reactors, will last for several billion years, i.e. as long as the sun is in a state to support life on earth," is simply wrong now because he wrote it in 1983, a mere 23 years ago?
Ok, does anyone here read the mag 'Focus'? It's a kinda science/tech mag which I read in my breaks in work (I work in a Tesco's). Either way, I read in it today that ... I'll just do a direct quote:
Not too sure if this is relevant, but I saw someone complaining about Nuclear somethings, and I though that article, or snippet was interesting, so i thought I'd post.Quote:
Originally Posted by FocusMag, August 2006
If (when) the world ends its natural oil reserves, I don't expect it to come peacefully. However, the answer is not on this or that solution. But will be in fact on the combination of several alternate energies that are a reality already today.
Solar energy will not "save the world", as much as nuclear plants, or ethanol, or electricity... What will guarantee the sustainability of our lifestyle is most probably a combination of them all and a few more that will certainly be researched in the meantime.
So I find it a little mute to be discussing here what will replace oil in the future. Although... this is just my opinion.
I just did some research on Cohen, he's my hero!
From Wikipedia:
"When Ralph Nader described Plutonium as "the most toxic substance known to mankind", Cohen, then a tenured professor, offered to consume on camera as much Plutonium oxide as Nader could consume of caffeine, the stimulant found in coffee and other beverages, which in its pure form has an estimated LD50 of 13-19 grams for an adult human. Professor Cohen maintained that the radioactive substance would pass through his intestinal tract unabsorbed."
Interesting, twomers. Here's a web article http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=1295, it's wierd that there would be a shortage. People aren't scared of radioactivity are they?
No, there will be one immediate solution, brought to you by the same people bringing you oil today. These big oil companies aren't going to disappear when the oil runs out. They have several alternatives stored away that they can go to at any time. As soon as they feel they need to, they will. They have too much money and too much power in the energy community to let anyone else take their place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Since we're on a programming forum, I could probably compare this to Microsoft and Linux. :) Yes, there are better alternatives than Microsoft, but they're too big to be pushed down. As soon as the public needs something that Linux offers and MS doesn't, then Microsoft will patch it onto their system.
^^ That would be nice, but how do you know this will happen? And how come nobody other than the oil companys found this alternative energy?
They have found them. That's why the oil companies have them.
Over the past 20 years, every alternative energy solution has been bought out by oil companies. Seriously, if someone offered you $50,000,000 for your idea, wouldn't you give it to them? If you didn't they would simply produce it quicker than you would, anyway, and get all the credit while you get nothing.
>> Interesting, twomers ... People aren't scared of radioactivity are they?
Just a quote from focus, which I trust. Does anyone read it? It's great, and interesting.
Hmm, lets put it this way. I wouldn't drink Plutonium like I do coffee, cause even if it did pass through my intestinal tract unabsorbed, I would probably turn into a hypochondriac in the process.
Well what are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
If I knew, I'd be $50,000,000 richer, wouldn't I. :)
Depends on what kind of alternatives you're looking for. You can get as weird as you want.
Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
A lot of people believe the Wardenclyffe Tower (see the "Later Years" section) was his attempt to provide free electricity on a large scale. J. P. Morgan supposedly stopped funding the project when he heard the word "free".
If you want a modern scientist's work on "Tesla technology", try this:
http://www.free-energy.cc/
If you want the cheap, bootlegged version of the previous link, try this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Free-Energy-Secr...QQcmdZViewItem
mw
mw
But what I'm saying is how do you know they have one?Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
Too speculative Sly. Sorry mate... but... ya know.
The reason oil companies have alternatives is because it's good business practice. Maybe not all of them, but I'm sure someone brought up at one of the board meetings "Uh-guys. This oil thing won't last forever".
BP has changed their name to BP ("British Petroleum" changed to "Beyond Petroleum"). I'm sure they're prepared in some way.
mw
Vehicles which run on the drivers sense of self satisfaction/ego would be the best alternative.
...and create the perfect smug storm... great...
Didn't you learn anything from South Park?
Well I was quoting the Simpsons I think (kind of inaccurately), but there was that one episode when Bart tried to get Family Guy cancelled in South Park. Heh heh.
I just don't think of the consequences of my actions do I?