Offshore drilling bill passes house - CONTACT YOUR SENATORS!

[Kim]

I dunno how big they'll be. Some are happening. Ethanol & bio diesel. though with ethanol i've read that it takes 7 gallons of gas and/or diesel to end up with 8 gallons of ethanol at the pump, so that's not going to be very effective at reducing oil consumption unless that can be seriously improved on.

And this is the real situation. Try as we might we haven't found anything that can replace oil that is as efficient. What if we can't? OK - maybe some will say that that is just too pessimistic but it's not on the horizon yet. What IS though is the fact that demand has outstripped supply, or very nearly, hence the price hike. We have already established that that demand is only going to increase quite radically so what's going to happen to the price? At what point, and how soon, does the cost of oil start to make things that most people can do now, like own a car or take a plane, simply too expensive. Remember that these are the oil big ticket items for many individuals. What about heating oil, plastics, food production costs, just about ANYTHING production costs?
As for the 'warnings' that some of us are remembering. Well guess what, some of them didn't happen, but some of them DID.
Personally I agree with Andy that it's probably already too late. Still, we COULD buy ourselves a little more time if we so choose to by trying to conserve what we have for as long as possible. That extra time COULD be just what someone needs to actually find a solution. Right now we are behaving like the 30/40 year smoker who hasn't really got seriously ill yet. They all know the guy who smoked 60 a day until in their 80s no problem. Why does that guy always figure more prominently than the thousands who died, had amputations, live on machines etc? Why do humans seem to always perceive things in the best light they can imagine and ignore the most likely outcome?

 

[cummings66]

I'd have to see the study showing Nuclear is a net loser. It produces such an incredible amount of energy that I find it unbelievable that it's a loss.

Ethanol I know is, per the article I referenced earlier it's been proven that the US can not grow enough corn to produce this fuel in the amounts needed and that it's not very efficient either. Another crop must be chosen if it's to succeed. However, if you optimize the car for the fuel it's not too bad. The problem is that around the US the fuel is not widespread enough to do so and as a result you have poor gas mileage in comparison to straight gasoline.

I think beaming energy from space to us is the answer... It is an interesting prospect and there's lots of room out there.

 

[Kim]

I'd have to see the study showing Nuclear is a net loser. It produces such an incredible amount of energy that I find it unbelievable that it's a loss.

No, I don't think that it is. It has it's other problems though. One doesn't have to look very far to see the problems in the spread of nuclear technology. Further discussion of that facet would immediately get too political however so we'd better not go there....

 

[serambin]

. . . We could build new nuclear power plants for heating/cooling. We could build mass transit systems for transportation. Right now, none of these options are economically, or in the case of nuclear power, environmentally viable. . .

I'm not sure I agree about nuclear energy. I do agree that it was prematurely touted as the 'best' solution in the sixties and seventies, and that it became politically incorrect after Three Mile Island. France currently gets 80%+ of is electricity from nuclear power while we get about 20%. Materials and engineering have improved since plants like Three Mile Island were built. It would require 'real' oversight by the AEC and strict adherence to safety protocol, but I think if the Frogs can do it, we can too.

Stan

 

[Cacia]

where do they put their nuclear waste?

 

[Kim]

where do they put their nuclear waste?

That's obviously one of the problems. The other big one is that the technology would have to be shared so that everyone could produce their own. It would obviously be ridiculous to have some people with their own energy but refusing to allow others to make it themselves. This is already a huge problem today!!!

The fact is, nuclear tech is dangerous stuff.

 

[serambin]

I guess they just dump it in the Atlantic (out of site, out of mind) ???

Stan

 

[DallasNewbie]

The premise behind peak oil is that we do *in fact* have limited capacity (at the present time).

Most people in the industry agree that there's a finite amount of oil on Earth. That isn't the basic premise of "peak oil" though. The premise of "peak oil" is that we can predict when we have recovered half of the oil available, and that production will steadly decrease from that point on. This premise is quite controversial.

Since we haven't developed any new technology to further increase the amount of oil we can extract from the earth - the amount that is available on the global market is slowly decreasing.

That's just not true. Today's technology allows us to recover oil that would be left in the ground a decade ago. The more the price goes up, the more oil will become available as technologies to recover it become cost effective. Google: "oil sands" for one example. And don't forget all the reserves that are simple off limits today for political, not technological reasons.

For those who are scientifically challenged - visit this web site:

http://www.peakoil.org/

Scientific challenged, indeed. They're selling solar power devices. Not what I would consider a reliable source. There's plenty of writing supporting "Hubbert's Peak" and plenty of criticism of it. The biggest criticism of the theory is that it ignores unconvential oil sources, and basically assumes that we will not find any new oil fields.

 

[bruehlt]

They're selling solar power devices. Not what I would consider a reliable source. There's plenty of writing supporting "Hubbert's Peak" and plenty of criticism of it. The biggest criticism of the theory is that it ignores unconvential oil sources, and basically assumes that we will not find any new oil fields.

Sorry

I attached the wrong link - the correct link is supposed to be:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

If you take the time to actually read this site (I know, reading is hard! ) Maybe you'll understand what is happening in the world.

 

[LeFlaneur]

It is natural, they were silt ladden when only Indians inhabited the coutry.

Silt-laden yes. Laden with ammonium nitrate, no.