# "Life After the Oil Crash"



## rcr (27 May 2004)

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ 

Has anyone ever seen this site? Any opinions? I read through it and found it quite frightening.  The authors make it sound like we‘ll be living like Mad Max instead of with smiles and a healthy pension.


----------



## Bert (27 May 2004)

You think thats scary, have you watched the 
previews for the movie coming out on the weekend
"The Day After Tommorow"?  Egads!  Better get
kitted for mukluks.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 May 2004)

This doofus claims that he couldn‘t care about making a large salary in a law firm because he became aware of this coming crisis.  Then in the next breath he‘s telling you to buy his book for $19.95.  When he could be giving away the info for free online.  Anyone else see something fishy there?


----------



## 63 Delta (27 May 2004)

I read all of the article, and that was the same thing I thought of. Sure a lot of advertising for his book. You would think if it was such a big deal that he would provide all the info for free. He sounds like a Michal Moore wanna be. But on the other hand, what about the impending oil dilema? What is going to happen after there is no oil. He is right about the fact that in order to create other oil alternatives, you need oil to make the product.


----------



## Troopasaurus (27 May 2004)

Wow that was... interesting. 

Notice how he claims that "There are no alernatives to oil that can even come close to making up for such a severe shortfall in oil supply." yes there is nothing that can fully replace oil products but there are definate alternatives. He claims that the world is just going to fall into complete chaos and we are going to basicly turn to clans and fight each other for the last drops of oil. Has he ever heard of adaptation? Its this neat concept that you change to what the current requirements of the situation is! hmmm we seem to be running out of oil, maybe we should cut back on the use of oil products while we look for alternatives. Overall yes im sure when we start to run out of oil there will be alot of changes to our lifestyle but the 90% population drops this guy speaks of? I seriously doubt that the population of the world would drop from 6.4 billion to 500 million because we start to run out of oil.But then again Bush... well ill just leave a couple of quotes on his view of the oil problem.

FIREFIGHTER ED HALL: "Mr. President, it really is an honor to meet you, but you don‘t have to drill for oil in the Arctic." 
BUSH: "Yeah, then we‘ll run out of energy." 
-- How Bush reacted to an impassioned message to spare the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil development, a project which is in no way intended to serve as America‘s sole energy source, and a message made by a firefighter who served in the World Trade Center cleanup operation, Jan. 2002

"It would be helpful if we opened up ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). I think it‘s a mistake not to. And I would urge you all to travel up there and take a look at it, and you can make the determination as to how beautiful that country is."â â€Press conference, Washington, D.C., March 29, 2001 

"This is still a dangerous world.  It‘s a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses."â â€At a South Carolina oyster roast, as quoted in the Financial Times, Jan. 14, 2000 

I cant find any quotes but if anybody remembers he claimed that ‘conservation is not the american way‘ and basicly claimed that he would invade anyone that was a threat to the american way of life. oh yea gotta love bush.


----------



## rcr (27 May 2004)

It was interesting yes.  I could tell it was suspicious as the information eased into a sales pitch.  However, what he has said about the Peak Oil and depletion is pretty true, it‘s got to happen sometime when you think about how much oil we actually use.  You‘re probably seeing it now with the gas prices.  What really disturbed me about it is the fact that this guy stated there‘s no alternatives, and that we‘ll have to burn our homes and scrounge for food because of the lack of conversationism and alternative research in the industrialized world.  When people start to talk like we‘re all going to slowly destroy ourselves, I get frustrated.  Look how far humanity has come, I think this is only going to be a block humanity is going to have to step over and continue on.  The bronze age, Iron age, Oil age, what‘s next? It‘s evolution I think. Though many could argue that, but to stay sane i‘ll stick with my positivity.


----------



## Infanteer (27 May 2004)

You think that‘s scary.  Look at the NDP‘s site and see what Jack Layton has in store for Canada should he become PM.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 May 2004)

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=601702004?? 

As an antidote you might want to read this.

It is by P.J. O‘Rourke.  A modest proposal suggesting that the Yankees go home.


For those that don‘t know O‘Rourke is a humourist.

Cheers

By the way Mike, I will add my thanks to those of the rest of the members of this forum.  Life has just not been the same without you


----------



## jrhume (27 May 2004)

Doomsday scenarios never pan out.  Remember, according to the purveyors of these scary visions of the future, we were supposed to have run out of oil about twenty years ago.

We keep finding more and we are gradually working toward alternatives.  

The real potential disasters are asteroid impacts, tsunamis caused by massive land slips and several other possibilities.  But, even those are not likely to extinguish humanity.

My 5 cents worth.


----------



## rdschultz (27 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] You think that‘s scary.  Look at the NDP‘s site and see what Jack Layton has in store for Canada should he become PM. [/qb]


heheh


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2004)

Oil won‘t just suddenly "run out".  The price will continue to rise as the cost of extracting it increases.  If you think the price increases won‘t stimulate creative responses such as searches for alternatives or reduction in use, you don‘t understand free markets very well.


----------



## Infanteer (28 May 2004)

> Oil won‘t just suddenly "run out". The price will continue to rise as the cost of extracting it increases. If you think the price increases won‘t stimulate creative responses such as searches for alternatives or reduction in use, you don‘t understand free markets very well.


You absolutely correct sir.  In fact, it has already begun.

  http://www.fordvehicles.com/environmental/hybrids/index.asp?bhcp=1  

Its funny how all those people whining about high gas prices and trying to organize boycotts of Shell are those who drive a new SUV with 350 horsepower that gets about 10 MPG.


----------



## Pieman (28 May 2004)

Hydrogen fuel cells will be the main energy source in the near future. There is a ton of money being dumped into development of these things in every developed country in the world.

  http://gillchair.lamar.edu/Research/FuelCell/fuelcell.htm  

  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html  

Also, people seem to forget about our untouched continent Antarctica. There is plenty of untapped oil, coal, etc. trapped under all that ice. No one is going to touch it now because it is too expensive and cold. But if the world gets hungry for oil....


----------



## jrhume (28 May 2004)

Brad,

Good point.  Too many people, including almost everyone in the media need a basic Econ 101 course.  Supply and demand is as misunderstood as the Geneva Convention.    

Don‘t forget nukes.  The US Navy has run a very successful program involving small nuclear reactors for over fifty years.  That technology will be put to work when people begin freezing in the winter and dying of heat in the summer -- regardless of the opposition of the fanatics.

Another nickels worth (US currency)


----------



## rdschultz (28 May 2004)

Hydrogen fuel cells are a great concept and they do have their benefits, but too many people are of the opinion that they‘re some sort of miracle solution to the energy problem.  They‘re far from it.

Pure hydrogen isn‘t very adundant in its usable state.  You can either extract the hydrogen from hydrocarbons, and we‘re still as dependant on fossil fuels.  Your other choice is producing hydrogen through electrolysis, which you need electricity for.  And until we start using wind and hydro for our power generation needs exclusively, you‘re in no better shape than pumping oil out of the ground.     

Will fuel cells become popular?  I have no doubt they will.  But they‘re not a magical solution to our energy problems.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2004)

Ultimately, our only energy problem is reluctance to employ all the means at our disposal.  I doubt that wind will ever amount to a significant percentage of any nation‘s power use.  If the price of oil increases enough or we start to experience regular power outages, I am confident people will stop heeding anti-nuclear hysterics.


----------



## jrhume (28 May 2004)

Wind and hydro?  We already know about the long term problems with hydroelectric dams.  There is a serious movement afoot to tear out some of the dams on the Columbia and elsewhere.  The environmental consequences of dams are serious.  Or were you referring to tidal-hydro?  That technology has the same problem that wind power does -- there are too few practical locations for producing power using current technology.

We use a lot of wind power in Colorado and Wyoming, but we‘ve learned is that site selection is critical and that the initial costs and upkeep of wind farms are major expenses -- rivaling the costs for a power plant.  Though it seems strange to anyone familiar with Wyoming, there are darn few places where the wind blows steadily enough and at the proper average speed to produce cost-effective electricity.  I‘ve been a proponent of wind power since before it was popular, but it isn‘t the panacea the true believers preach about.  At best, we will never produce more than about 20% of our total power needs with the wind -- and that much only if the technology continues to improve.

The same is true of tidal hydro.  Technology will make it more useful, but it will never produce more than a fraction of our total needs.  Transmission losses alone make it useful only within reasonable distance of a coast.

We will need and are working toward a combination of techniques for our future energy needs.  What the whole process needs is fewer shouting true believers and more cooperation.

Here in Fort Collins we are building a CNG fueling station for our bus fleet.  That plant will include a hydrogen generator.  It will produce hydrogen from natural gas, which, as pointed out above, still leaves us tied to fossil fuels, although we have a good supply of natural gas and have the means to produce more, using various methane-producing processes.  Still, the long-term solution will be for a low-cost method of producing hydrogen.

There is much talk of fuel cells, but the initial use of hydrogen will be in existing internal combustion engines.  IC technology has advanced light years from the old carburator systems.  All the pieces are in place to properly mix the fuel and control hydrogen-fueled engines.  The big thing needed isn‘t fuel -- it‘s a distrubution system.  Either the fuel has to be generated at many locations and piped to ‘gas‘ stations or it has to be produced at a few large locations and delivered to fuel sites much as gasoline is now.

I leave it to you to figure out which way Big Oil would like to have it work.


----------



## rdschultz (28 May 2004)

Sorry, I didn‘t mean to insinuate that wind and hydro were perfect.  I‘m well aware of their detriments.  Its just that they‘re about the two major viable renewable sources of energy in usage.  I should‘ve been more clear, but I was trying to illustrate that unless we‘re using them exclusively for power, we‘re not escaping the fossil-fuel problem at all (even though with them we‘d still be creating other problems).  I could‘ve also included nuclear, but thats still a non-renewable source, so I left it out as a means to avoid trying to overexplain my position.  And I left solar out because until we have some major breakthroughs in photovoltaics or other technology, it isn‘t very realistic (much less so than wind or hydro).


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2004)

Further to the comments of Maj Sallows and Hoser fuel cells and fossil fuels are not incompatible.

The problem with fossil fuels today is that there are too many exhaust stacks.  In the Vancouver area today, lets say there are 2,000,000 vehicles of various ages.  Each one belches out CO2.  Accepting that CO2 is a problem it just would not be very economical to incorporate a technology to capture all that CO2 on all those vehicles (2,000,000 equipment sets to be purchased and maintained) then organize a "blue-box" type of recycling programme for the CO2 (we need it to make plants grow as I recall).

Alternatively 1-10 plants running on natural gas, oil, coal, whatever to manufacture hydrogen would restrict CO2 production to 1-10 sites.  You would then only need to supply and maintain 1-10 equipment sets and the volumes of CO2 generated could be efficiently controled, maybe even sold.  Here in BC Greenhouses are burning fuels not just to heat the greenhouses but to pump CO2 into them to enhance plant growth.  Also CO2 is being used in Alberta to pressure oilfields.  Not to mention Coca-Cola, Bud Light and anciently ACDC concerts.

There are a number of solutions along the way and as in all other cases adaptations are found.

As regards small nukes, I seem to recall that the University of Saskatchewan actually built a small reactor recently that was being considered to upgrade the British subs we just bought.

Just a final thought as regards Global Warming.  Not a bad idea to conserve and clean-up but you might want to prepare a survival strategy in any case.  Just ask the Mammoths and the Dinosaurs whether living in harmony with nature was enough to guarantee survival.  The Liberals and Warren Kinsella reminded us the last election that man wasn't around then so its unlikely to have been us to blame.


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2004)

I always found the Union of Concerned Scientists to be a good resource on environmental issues and solutions.

www.ucsusa.org


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 May 2004)

You forgot to embed your testimonial and link between [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm].


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2004)

Not a fan?   Do you find their reports unrealistic?  Granted not all of their views are appealing, it still appears to be a somewhat progressive site  (however it may detest President Bush and big business).


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2004)

I am with Brad on this one, Infanteer.   

Their facts may be right but their spin leaves me cold.

Case in point - Global Warming - agreed - occurring
                                                                           - agreed - serious
                                                                           - disagree - man-made
                                                                           - agree - we can do something about it
                                                                           - disagree - we can prevent it
                                                                           - agree - we can react to the consequences like our ancestors had to

Global Warming happens once every 500 million years or so when the planet comes out of a 2 million year deep freeze.   We are only coming out of the most recent one now - and have not yet reached the longterm average temperature, we have to add another 7 degrees or so before that happens. And then, if the pattern repeats itself the temperature may rise by another 12-15C without extinquishing life as we know it.   

May be a rough transition, New York may have to move like Ur did in the past, the Dutch may want to build their dikes a bit higher but you got to stay flexible.

During the last 12,000 years the Sahara has been green, the Amazon has been a desert and all mountains including those at the equator were blocked by glaciers and sea levels were 120m lower than they are now.  There may even have been a couple of "nuclear winter" inducing comet strikes along the way. Ice and sediment cores seem to indicate that as a possibility.  As somebody famously said Sh*t happens.

UCSUSA has an agenda.   You were right when you call them progressives.


Cheers.


----------



## rcr (31 May 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Case in point - Global Warming - agreed - occurring
> - agreed - serious
> - disagree - man-made
> - agree - we can do something about it



Agreed.


----------



## Infanteer (31 May 2004)

> UCSUSA has an agenda.   You were right when you call them progressives.



I'll agree with that.   And for some reason their agenda seems to be quite Anti-Republican; which doesn't really fit on my plate as an environmental advocacy group.   I will admit that I haven't scratched the surface of alot of their issues; I looked into their Ballistic Missile Defence and alternative fuel research in detail.

However, I still tend to agree with Robert Kaplan that with the combination of population growth and both resource depletion and environmental degradation, the environment will become a significant issue of national security.

Next time, I'll put a disclaimer on my endorsements, because you guys are sharp.  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jun 2004)

I am disinclined to pay attention to any organization which is prepared to subvert scientific objectivity in the service of political expediency.

As John McCarthy has written: "Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say."


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jun 2004)

Okay...okay...

[sarcasm]I always found the Union of Concerned Scientists to be a good resource on environmental issues and solutions.

www.ucsusa.org[/sarcasm]

 ;D

Like I said, I've found their material on Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missile Defence to be pretty good.   It was part of the course from a pretty left-wing professor, but I still found myself agreeing with some of it.

That's what I get for not following my own advice and listening to that asshole!

Now the question remains:   Is there an organization that looks at environmental issues and provides objective scientific recommendations rather than subjective political ones, or is the issue of environmentalism too wrapped up with politics and business to hope for that?


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jun 2004)

A politically-neutral organization dedicated to environmental issues?  If there is one, it isn't well-publicized.  This is just a wild guess on my part: the "truth" is rarely sensational or newsworthy, so the people objectively studying the natural sciences go quietly about their business with no motivation that they are part of some great crusade; they do not seek publicity, nor are the results of their research (eg. that the world is not in imminent danger of one natural disaster or another of biblical proportions) newsworthy.  People who have taken up a "cause", on the other hand, are enthusiastically vocal.

It strikes me that the environmental catastrophiles have adopted a quasi-religion.  They tolerate and patronize the unbelievers, but become nearly unhinged by rage when confronted by someone who has left the flock or adopted a changed viewpoint.  Consider the reaction to people such as Patrick Moore and Bjorn Lomborg.


----------



## clasper (2 Jun 2004)

Another problem comes from the fact that as a science, climatology isn't as well understood as some of the other sciences (Newtonian mechanics for instance).  Two different scientists, working objectively, can come up with different results from the same data.  If you throw the scientists political ideas into the equation, it can become a real crap shoot, and a layman can have an exceptionally difficult time trying to understand what is actually going on.


----------

