The Long Emergency

Remove all ads!

I read the article and the errors are too numerous to list...but it all starts with the misconception that the price-per-barrel of crude oil has anything to do with actual supply.

That isn't to say that we don't face energy challenges in the coming generation, but the assumptions and extrapolations drawn by the author are way off base.

These type of Cautionary Tales have been being generated in varying degrees of accuracy for the past 50 years. They've claimed that the US economy would implode if oil topped $20/bbl, or that we would exhaust all readily available stores of fuel by 1980 or that "greenhouse effect" would alter our climate by 1995.

It's one thing to be able to identify and discuss a problem, i.e. the rising cost of energy...and another to be able to understand the effects of that problem on industry, society, civilization. The author fails to hit target on either one of these objectives.

 

I've often wondered about magnetic power as well. I remember reading years ago an article about cars moving on electrified and magnet tracks, almost like trains, but moving at a high rate of speed. It may be tough to do on rural and local roads, but the highways could be modified I bet.

Sadly, I'm an idea man, not too good at the science of it all.

 

Yes, that particular article may contain some extreme views and some inaccuracies.

That, however, does not alter the fact that oil supplies will be decreasing (unless somebody wants to claim otherwise) and that our current lifestyle is highly dependent on oil related energy and products.

Rather than quibbling over minor matters in that article, we should be thinking about what each of us should be doing NOW in relation to this issue.

For example, this is the main reason why I cringe when I see people driving around in gigantic oversized four wheel drive cars (unless you are some sort of wilderness off-road park ranger or something).

 

Hubbert Peak

 

Bel,
if I get you right, magnetic power most probably will probaly still require electromagnetics, that is, electric power. It's probably about magnetic levitation.

One example is Germany's Transrapid (which we unfortunately didn't procure ourselves for inter-city travel thanks to our green party, who feared it could kill the good, ol' - and notoriously late - train. Top speed would be 270 mph, some 430 km/h) ... we now get it as an airport shuttle, what a waste.

And who's going to get it large scale? China. Geez.

http://www.bayerische-magnetbahn.de/en/index.php

It would make possible connections like Cologne Paris in one hour, from city center to city center, without airport hassle. Bleh.

[ April 08, 2005, 01:12: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Maybe rather than scrabbling around to find ethereal sources of extra power - we should be thinking about how to get by on less power. Radical idea, I know, but then again, no different to any other time in human history other than the 20th century.

I don't mean a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle but just a world that is less reliant on enormous energy wastage. For example, there might be enough power for small electric cars that can potter around town, but not enough for giant cars to take on the highway. For long haul travel you might have to take some sort of train (but go less often because of the cost).

I imagine a world where power is simply MORE EXPENSIVE, reflecting its comparative scarcity, so people will have to find ways to use less.

 

electromagnetic power, that's it!!

 

Re: oxygen

Just grow more trees!

 

The word that I have been getting from energy people here in Houston is that coal will be the big thing as oil reserves dry up. The problem is that it is so messy in the environment. So the focus, from what I hear, is that they are developing new scrubbers that will make it cleaner to convert coal to gasoline. But it is expected to make up for most of the shortfall that is supposed to happen in the next ten to fifteen years. And should get us through the next hundered years. I don't know how accurate or true all this really is, but it's what I've heard from people who work in big oil.

I agree, HS. It's probably just the prez just paying off all his buddies.

 

Bah! Coal is just another form of oil really (just in a slightly different chemical state). Same with natural gas. It too is limited in supply so, at best, only provides a temporary solution. Any scientific debate on this can only be around how long it will take to run out, not whether we will run out.

The only long term solutions are to either find a way to efficiently harness a renewable energy source (such as the sun, wind, tides, fusion, earth's rotation, geothermal, magnetism, cosmic rays, perpetual motion, yogic flying, prayers etc) and / or to use less energy.

 

Massive satellites equipped with huge solar panels perhaps?

 

Tassadar - how are you planning to launch those satellites? We'll have to bring forward the invention of the warp drive and impluse power. Now where did I put those dilithium crystals?

 

I'm sure those crazy yanks will think of something.

 

Come on, HB. I don't know jack about science; it's not my area. I can't debate science in any real capactity that would amount to anything close to an expert. You really think a bunch guys on a D&D site on the internet are going to solve the world's energy problems? But I know there's enough hot air on this site at times to keep us going for a pretty good while....

 

We may not be able to solve the world's problems (today anyway) but the fact remains that each of us has choices to make about how we deal with circumstances we find ourselves in. We can make some reasoned decisions about what we CAN do and what IS within our powers. If you start with the premise that the world WILL be different when the supply of oil falls, then the next question is: how are you going to make sure you minimise the impact on you and your family?

You don't have to be a scientist to decide to do such things as, for example:
a) to get a job closer to home
b) to drive a smaller car
c) to make sure your kids don't specialise in fields that may not exist in the future
d) buy a farm
e) invent an efficient solar cell
f) discover a wormhole to another oil-filled dimension

OK, I'm starting to get a bit silly, but I'm trying to say that you all have decisions you can make within your own spheres of influence.

 

Exactly HB...each of us can start in our own lives and small changes can yield big savings. I've already seen it to some extent as gasoline prices have spiked here in the U.S. I know many people who are already changing driving habits to economize. One co-worker who was considering the purchase of a new SUV opted for a subcompact strictly on the basis of fuel economy.

What the Hubbert model fails to recognize is that demand will decrease as price increases...and as energy price increases it will eventually be cost-effective to implement habits and technologies that will have a drastic effect on consumption.

Chandos...you may have hit upon an untapped source of a new blend of geothermal and wind energy...

...of course, then we'd be shifting our energy dependence from a Middle Eastern power crazed despot to an Eastern European power crazed despot.

Imagine the US Energy Czar meeting with Tal to implore that he not close any Alley debate threads.

 

I agree completely with what you are saying here, HB. And on this I'm really serious. If more Americans shared this thoughtful viewpoint everyone would be a lot better off.

But you are starting to sound like a Green, which would be considered to be a Red (Commie) here in Texas (the land of guns and pickup trucks and where everyone knows it's a God given right to own both). But then Texas is a "Red" state - so most Texans could be considered "Reds" anyway. Nevermind.

HS - I'd put my money on Tal to win that one.

 

hemp can produce petrolium.

 

Does that mean I should tell my sister not to get her master's in French Literature?