Peak Oil...Scary stuff

wrong robotwrong robot
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/





I just read the majority of this page, And while I think that the author is exaggerating at least a little, and most likely being overtly pessimistic, he speaks the truth. Whether or not 2-5 years from now will be the start of the end of the world or not is diminished to the fact that this will happen, and we really gotta start getting our butts into gear.



What are your thoughts on this?



I'm kind of torn because I want to just cast it off "oh, it won't happen in my lifetime" or "We'll think of something"



but, it doesn't seem like anything substantial can happen, not unlike apple ever reaching more than 10% market share, while it seems like it should happen due to apple's superior products, the decades of inertia against it, and the huge installed, saturated market, is preventing it from happening.



either way, I'm going to do my part, to help cope with this.



editanother link) http://www.dieoff.org/page224.htm
«13456789

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 167
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    It's true and it's very frightening.
  • Reply 2 of 167
    resres Posts: 711member
    Nothing new there. We've known for years the we will use up the world oil supply sometime in the 21 centery. And that as oil becomes scarce there will be wars and death on a scale not seen since the last great ice age causing meteor impact.



    The only plausible way to avid the destruction of civilization would be a massive push into space and the creation of solar power stations in orbit or on the moon that would beam power down to the earth. That would give us a stable source of power for the foreseeable future.



    Of course, since the space program has been gutted, and our form of government is very short sighted, most likely civilization as we know it will crash in either our, or our children's lifetimes.
  • Reply 3 of 167
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    OK, you want to go out fighting or like a lamb?
  • Reply 4 of 167
    talksense101talksense101 Posts: 1,738member
    Reminds me of the GNR warning by Bill Joy. The difference with this one is that it is too paranoid. Worse, it uses paranoia as an excuse to justify new weapons development and war. The final advise from the site is as below:



    Quote:

    What are some steps that I can take in the next few days to begin addressing this situation?



    The following list is by no means exhaustive. These are just some simple steps you can begin taking immediately.



    (Listed in no particular order)



    1. Educate yourself about Peak Oil and its ramifications. Read through the sites linked to in this site. Consider obtaining copies of books such The Party's Over: War, Oil, and the Fate of Industrial Civilizations by Richard Heinberg.



    2. Educate others. If you're not sure how to go about doing so, consider forwarding them this site.



    3. Seek out like minded folks. If you're not sure where to start, you may want to join the Yahoo group "Running on Empty 2." When I first learned about Peak Oil, that was the first place I went. I found the members of the group very friendly, helpful and patient with "newbies."



    4. Perform Google searches for Peak Oil whenever you get the chance. As more people search for "Peak Oil", the folks at Google will take notice. This may result in increased mainstream media coverage.



    5. Adopt a vegetarian/ vegan diet, or at least reduce your meat consumption as much as you can.



    6. Start using your bicycle or public transportation instead of your car, whenever possible.



    7. Limit your purchase of consumer items to those that you really need .



    8. Reduce your use of electricity as much as possible. Consider investing in items such solar powered lanterns, battery chargers, radios, hot water heaters, laptop chargers, bicycled powered generators etc.



    9. Consider converting your vehicle to Biodiesal.



    10. Consider taking an organic farming class or joining a local food co-op.



    11. Begin learning basic emergency medical procedures.



    12. Investigate alternative forms of health care such as bioenergetic healing, self hypnosis etc. . .



    13. Reduce your debt load as much as possible.



    14. Begin thinking how you are going to survive through blackouts, food/water shortages and economic breakdowns.



    15. If you own your home, start conducting research about installing solar panels or windmills.



    Yawn! For all that you know, the world might be destoryed by a natural calamity tomorrow; Just because you start worrying about GNR (genetics, nano-technology, robotics), peak oil, comets striking the planet, natural calamities and what not, you are not going to prevent any of these from happening. Humans have a funny way of surviving; throughout our history, those who made a difference are not those who spent their time worrying about it.



    You can either plan to be a silent spectator to armagadeon as suggested by this website or you can take control of your life and try to do something about it. How about inventing a machine that helps with the energy crisis? (as an example)
  • Reply 5 of 167
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Talksense, you have a point ... the site is really paranoid and makes a couple of statements too obviously twisted.



    But what I like about it is that it's not party-political. Bush? Bastard. Clinton? Bastard. That's refreshing.



    I do disagree with you though. What you're suggesting is like saying that if we see the comet heading for earth we should do nothing about it! We can see this problem coming toward us, and we can see actions of our governments taking us toward calamity.



    (Me, now I AM political.Oilmen should not be running the world at a time of crisis. Cheney was wrong when he said "The American way of life is not negotiable," as nature is shortly about to bitch-slap him.)
  • Reply 6 of 167
    whisperwhisper Posts: 735member
    Obviously, at some point we will run out of oil, but this guy raised a few red flags on my BS-O-Meter on page two of his article. Thinking that cold fusion or zero-point energy could help us out is not on the list of ways into credibility.



    His comments about self-healing on page five don't help any either.
  • Reply 7 of 167
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Whisper

    Obviously, at some point we will run out of oil, but this guy raised a few red flags on my BS-O-Meter on page two of his article. Thinking that cold fusion or zero-point energy could help us out is not on the list of ways into credibility.



    Whisper, he specifically says that cold fusion and zero-point energy will NOT help us because they are both bullshit.
  • Reply 8 of 167
    whisperwhisper Posts: 735member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Whisper, he specifically says that cold fusion and zero-point energy will NOT help us because they are both bullshit.



    No, he said that he's "the world's biggest advocate" of such things, but that there aren't even any prototypes yet so he doesn't think they'll be here in time to make a difference.



    I'm not saying that there won't be an oil crash or anything, just that this guy's a nut so maybe we shouldn't be looking to him for guidance. For the record, he may well be right about how dire the situation is and how we should've seen this coming and done something about it a long time ago (in fact, I agree with him about that). It's just that this guy in particular is nuttier than a fruitcake.
  • Reply 9 of 167
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Whisper

    No, he said that he's "the world's biggest advocate" of such things, but that there aren't even any prototypes yet so he doesn't think they'll be here in time to make a difference.



    Yeh, you're right about his position on this.
  • Reply 10 of 167
    ganondorfganondorf Posts: 573member
    It's true, and so is the 2nd ice age which is coming at about the same time.
  • Reply 11 of 167
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    2nd ice age?



    There is evidence ice ages have gone on for, well, eternity.



    Every one of our pharmaceuticals begins with starting materials derived from oil. But what most people do not realize is that there are already processes that can take every day refuse and convert it somewhat cheaply back into these basic compounds (these are energy requiring process though and the source for that energy is hotly contested).



    Oil and coal for energy is a bad idea and these resources should be preserved for plastics, medicines, etc.



    There may be a point when we are forced to bite the nuclear bullet until we have efficient ways of generating energy from the sun or other means.
  • Reply 12 of 167
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    The nuclear bullet may well need to be bitten; however the creation of nuclear reactors is hugely demanding of energy.



    Where I'm sure we can agree is that a massive reduction of consumption is absolutely required immediately, to prevent an un-managed, forced supply constraint ... that will, WILL, cause catastrophic issues.



    Obviously there's a problem. Massive reduction of consumption runs counter to Cheney's fairly hopeless "The American way of life is not negotiable." OK, we're all ****ed then Dick. Thanks.



    International terrorism is far less of an issue then this. People like the right-wingers on these boards to realise this, and people like the left-wingers on these boards need to realise it too and work together on a realistic set of soluctions.
  • Reply 13 of 167
    thoth2thoth2 Posts: 277member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    2nd ice age?



    There may be a point when we are forced to bite the nuclear bullet until we have efficient ways of generating energy from the sun or other means.



    I, too, think that's where this is going - nuclear energy will be somewhat easier to do in the US, but I don't think that's not really a solution for the rest of the world's countries. Certainly not one that should be advocated, anyway. Our already sketchy control over non-proliferation would be non-existent if that were to happen.

    -thoth
  • Reply 14 of 167
    thunderpoitthunderpoit Posts: 709member
    bah, we got the second ice age problem nailed, why else do you think all those SUVs are out there?
  • Reply 15 of 167
    jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,095member
    Considering that practically every internal combustion engine that runs on gasoline could be converted - if not built new from the factory - to run on natural gas, and that there already exists a distribution network for this stuff, and that this stuff can be generated from refuse or pulled out of the ground, there is an exit strategy. With natural gas producing far less pollutants and greenhouse gases, maybe it will take a slap in the face to get people to accept technology already in use outside the USA.



    The scary scenario described on Page 2 might happen if all of a sudden we wake up and say "Hey, there's no oil!" But escalating prices will be the impetus for folks to start converting. I've had two cars that run on the stuff and I really wonder what he's talking about that it can't happen fast enough or that it will all be used up. The problem is that it is not cost-effective for demand to get it out from certain areas or produce it from garbage - but that would change once automobiles started running on the stuff. A car would use more in a month than a house in a year. The NG companies really want to see this happen, but the laziness of the population to not even explore alternates is what keeps this from taking off.
  • Reply 16 of 167
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    One of the major problems with natural gas (read methane) is that it itself is a green house gas. There are literally uncountably many of these hydrated methane rock-like structures on the bottom of the ocean -- but how do you access them without bringing about a global catastrophe?



    Methane is as much as a temporary fix as nuclear power if not more of one.



    Solar generated hydrogen is probably the easiest way to a storable fuel but there are unprecedented problems with this as a solution. What happens as hydrogen escapes and the atmosphere becomes more reductive (read less oxygen, with no concomitant increase in carbon dioxide so even the plants are unhappy -- this is assuming that neither O2 nor CO2 are produced or released in the process of making H2, which actually isn't quite fair but let's run with it). What we need is direct power from the sun. Everything that involves a temporary storage of fuel in chemical form is wasteful.
  • Reply 17 of 167
    jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,095member
    I agree that methane is a greenhouse gas, but what comes out of a tailpipe on a car running methane verses a car running gasoline is 80-90% less greenhouse gases and pollutants. In fact, carbon monoxide is almost immeasurable. The sad thing is the inertia of the average consumer. And this is one of the reasons I support a massive increase on gas taxes and using that money to encourage people to search out alternatives - and help them pay for it. There has to be a breaking point for the wallets of SUV owners where they will say that gasoline is expensive and alternative have to be considered.



    Being a quick fix, it is the best quick fix that can be used today. Every car that gets converted - or built this way - will immediately reduce undesirable emissions drastically until society can start planning on exotic technologies for our energy needs. The time for legislators to tax gasoline and for consumer to act is now! The technology is here, we just need the push.
  • Reply 18 of 167
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JimDreamworx

    Being a quick fix, it is the best quick fix that can be used today. Every car that gets converted - or built this way - will immediately reduce undesirable emissions drastically until society can start planning on exotic technologies for our energy needs. The time for legislators to tax gasoline and for consumer to act is now! The technology is here, we just need the push.



    Oil seed rape works too.
  • Reply 19 of 167
    fred_ljfred_lj Posts: 607member
    What's the typical price for converting a petro engine to natural gas?
  • Reply 20 of 167
    jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,095member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fred_lj

    What's the typical price for converting a petro engine to natural gas?



    Right now, due to supply and demand, and the fact that I did this in Canada at the time, the equivalent cost in US dollars would probably be about $1,000 - a cost that could be borne by the government if they increased taxes on gasoline and earmarked that money to pay for conversions. Or apply a tax to the sales of gasoline vehicles that would be used, but alternate fuel vehicles would not have this tax.



    In Canada, the NG companies also tossed in a few bucks because they knew full well a car uses more in a month than a house in a year, and it was in their best interests to have car owners running on their product. And the comparative prices for the fuel more than offset such a conversion with two-years of regular driving - so even if the govt didn't pay for it, it made sense from a business case. Even more savings if a local slow-fill appliance was installed on your property as opposed to getting quick fills at a gas station.



    The best thing about such a conversion is that it is dual fuel. Nobody loses gasoline ability, lest you are out in the boondocks and run on empty. I still wonder why people don't take advantage of it in Canada.
Sign In or Register to comment.