"Life After the Oil Crash"
- Thread starter rcr
- Start date
4
48Highlander
Guest
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
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
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
Member
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 230
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.
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 11,902
- Points
- 1,160
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
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
J
jrhume
Guest
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.
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.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,892
- Points
- 1,040
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.
- Reaction score
- 12,764
- Points
- 1,260
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
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 28
- Points
- 530
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....
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....
J
jrhume
Guest
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)
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)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
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
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,892
- Points
- 1,040
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.
J
jrhume
Guest
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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).
- Reaction score
- 11,902
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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.
