Life after oil... interesting read..

[OffTopic1]

All I have to mention is the ocean and that would be enough.

Are you referring to methan hydrate mining, harnessing wave power, or solar?

Mining MH crystals from the ocean floor can be dangerous, with environment affect such as global warming & tsunamis, and at the moment we lack the know how & an economical way to mine it.

Cover our coast line with wave turbine or solar panels would affect the coastal sea life.

Solar power is most logical power source to pursue, because it is abundance and is the energy source of all life.

Hydro power is great but it also cause environment problem such as flooding.

"One example is the dam failures of 1975 that devastated the Henan province and claimed over 200,000 lives but was only recently made known to the public."

Yangtze River

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: exdeath
There is an alternative to oil and it is 100% clean, natural, and renewable, and has similar energy as gasoline.

Alcohol.

Alcohol made from grain fertilized by petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, harvested by machines running on petroleum products, and distilled using heat, which has to come from somewhere. It takes more energy to make a gallon of alcohol than you can get out of it. Hydrogen is the same way. You're not creating energy, you're just converting it into a different form. And every time you do that, you lose some.

We don't have to expend much energy to produce a gallon of oil - oil was created by natural processes millions of years before we evolved. We don't have to supply the energy needed to make it. That's already been done by Mother Earth. All we have to do is get it out of the ground and refine it a bit. The rest, to us, is "free" energy - lots of it. Do you see the distinction?

We don't have an energy source that comes remotely close to fossil fuels right now. Biodiesel? We would need a square of land 1100 miles on a side planted entirely in soybeans to produce enough biodiesel just to run our 250 million cars. TDP? Great idea, but we don't produce nearly enough waste for that to meet our energy needs - and if we have to grow biomass specifically for TDP, we're back at the same negative energy equation we have with alcohol. Perhaps the free market will solve that problem as the situation gets worse. But the solutions being touted today aren't nearly as viable as they look.

Actually, it doesen't take more energy to produce alcohol than we can get out of it.

The best EROI I've heard of for alcohol is about 2.2:1. That is, 2.2 parts energy out for every 1 part in.

Nowhere close to oil, but still better than 1:1 or less.

 

[Adul]

we're fsck, but in the end we'll make it some how.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: exdeath
There is an alternative to oil and it is 100% clean, natural, and renewable, and has similar energy as gasoline.

Alcohol.

Alcohol made from grain fertilized by petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, harvested by machines running on petroleum products, and distilled using heat, which has to come from somewhere. It takes more energy to make a gallon of alcohol than you can get out of it. Hydrogen is the same way. You're not creating energy, you're just converting it into a different form. And every time you do that, you lose some.

We don't have to expend much energy to produce a gallon of oil - oil was created by natural processes millions of years before we evolved. We don't have to supply the energy needed to make it. That's already been done by Mother Earth. All we have to do is get it out of the ground and refine it a bit. The rest, to us, is "free" energy - lots of it. Do you see the distinction?

We don't have an energy source that comes remotely close to fossil fuels right now. Biodiesel? We would need a square of land 1100 miles on a side planted entirely in soybeans to produce enough biodiesel just to run our 250 million cars. TDP? Great idea, but we don't produce nearly enough waste for that to meet our energy needs - and if we have to grow biomass specifically for TDP, we're back at the same negative energy equation we have with alcohol. Perhaps the free market will solve that problem as the situation gets worse. But the solutions being touted today aren't nearly as viable as they look.

I was thinking natural bio processes with yeasts and stuff.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
I agree with the "we will find other way" peeps....however I think we have wrongly assume that technology will get us to the next energy source quickly. The time it would take to slightly reduce our dependence on oil is far longer than the time we will continue to be able to pump "cheap" oil..

When gas hits $4 a gallon, I think people will quickly learn to reduce their dependence on gas-guzzling SUVs.

 

[NakaNaka]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
I agree with the "we will find other way" peeps....however I think we have wrongly assume that technology will get us to the next energy source quickly. The time it would take to slightly reduce our dependence on oil is far longer than the time we will continue to be able to pump "cheap" oil..

When gas hits $4 a gallon, I think people will quickly learn to reduce their dependence on gas-guzzling SUVs.

Agreed. Gas is expensive which is why we are seeing more hybrid's/cars with better efficency. But while it is expensive, it hasn't hit that OMG point yet. When it does, then consumers will really want to change and we will see innovation. Hopefully, business/the gov't will come up with an alternative by then so we don't have a major problem once we reach that point; we can just transition instead of running towards it.

 

[Vic]

Supplies have nothing to do with why oil/gas is expensive right now.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Vic
Supplies have nothing to do with why oil/gas is expensive right now.

I would tend to think speculation and "gouging" are the key culprits. Refinging capacity, which hasn't been increased in over 2 decades, might be a part of the equation also.

[Gordon Gecko]Greed is Good[/Gordon Gecko]

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Vic
Supplies have nothing to do with why oil/gas is expensive right now.

I would tend to think speculation and "gouging" are the key culprits. Refinging capacity, which hasn't been increased in over 2 decades, might be a part of the equation also.

[Gordon Gecko]Greed is Good[/Gordon Gecko]

Yep. The weakening dollar is what set it off, creating an inflation for US currency on the world markets that had to affect the price of oil. Oil futures traders then counted on these whacky pessimitic doomsaying types who take every little blip in the price of oil as a sign that we're gonna run out tomorrow, have used such propaganda for the basis of a little speculative run-up, and oil companies are making record profits.
Yaknow, the oil companies really should pay the guy who made the lifeaftertheoilcrash.net site. You really can't buy that type of marketing.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: NakaNaka

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
I agree with the "we will find other way" peeps....however I think we have wrongly assume that technology will get us to the next energy source quickly. The time it would take to slightly reduce our dependence on oil is far longer than the time we will continue to be able to pump "cheap" oil..

When gas hits $4 a gallon, I think people will quickly learn to reduce their dependence on gas-guzzling SUVs.

Agreed. Gas is expensive which is why we are seeing more hybrid's/cars with better efficency. But while it is expensive, it hasn't hit that OMG point yet. When it does, then consumers will really want to change and we will see innovation. Hopefully, business/the gov't will come up with an alternative by then so we don't have a major problem once we reach that point; we can just transition instead of running towards it.

It's nowhere even close to where it should be IMHO. What I don't understand is how when gas was only around $1-1.50 a gallon in the US it was around $4-5 everywhere else in the world. Do we subsidize gas here or do we just not tax it here?

IMHO, it should be around $4 a gallon right now and climbing.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: NakaNaka

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
I agree with the "we will find other way" peeps....however I think we have wrongly assume that technology will get us to the next energy source quickly. The time it would take to slightly reduce our dependence on oil is far longer than the time we will continue to be able to pump "cheap" oil..

When gas hits $4 a gallon, I think people will quickly learn to reduce their dependence on gas-guzzling SUVs.

Agreed. Gas is expensive which is why we are seeing more hybrid's/cars with better efficency. But while it is expensive, it hasn't hit that OMG point yet. When it does, then consumers will really want to change and we will see innovation. Hopefully, business/the gov't will come up with an alternative by then so we don't have a major problem once we reach that point; we can just transition instead of running towards it.

It's nowhere even close to where it should be IMHO. What I don't understand is how when gas was only around $1-1.50 a gallon in the US it was around $4-5 everywhere else in the world. Do we subsidize gas here or do we just not tax it here?

IMHO, it should be around $4 a gallon right now and climbing.

No, we tax it here (the cost of a gallon of gas is typically close to 50% tax)... other countries tax it to death. How could that possibly be good? It will only increase government dependence on oil.

 

[BSEagle1]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: chrisms
It seems as though the end of oil will be nature's way of fixing the population boom of humans.

That very well could be, and that would be too bad.

Hopefully we're smarter than that.......

And hopefully that's not too much to ask for...

Too many hopes........ :Q

Honestly why would that be too bad?

Agree totally. Humans have made themselves a plague to the planet with their ambition and greed, and the ones who want to try to fix it are too few and not in the right seats of power. Nature will clean itself as needed and we've only brought it on ourselves. Everyone keeps saying 'Oh! Technology will save us!' Well guess what, buddy? It's technology that caused all these problems in the first place. More technology? More problems will come up. Hydrogen power produces water, yes? What do we do with the water? It eventually goes into the oceans. So even if it was a viable option, guess what happens to livable land when the ocean level starts to rise? Don't forget the melting glaciers and icecaps. Hello, Waterworld.

But, it doesn't sadden me because it'd be for the greater good. Mankind could have been smart and restrained itself. But, no. Scientists just couldn't leave well enough alone and still continue to tamper and meddle, interfere with nature, not look ahead. I laugh when people call humans the smartest race on the planet...we may have scientific knowledge, sure. But when it comes to things that matter humans are foolish, and stupid.

Anyway. I dunno about the guy sitting in his posh office in the Sears building who thinks he's something because he has money, but I can bloody well take care of myself and my own and others better be able to do the same. I can build things with hand tools. I can walk places...boy can I walk places. And most importantly of all, I can learn how to dig a well (or have one, maybe two drilled before we're out of oil) for water. I can build a fire from scratch, and dangit I can build myself a greenhouse and have food year round. My girlfriend and I, as well as my family, are vegetarians...we'd live in fine harmony with the rest of the planet, something that should have been adopted in the first place if we really were the most intelligent race around.

In a way this won't be so bad at all; we will be returning to nature, those who survive...and maybe those who do will have learned a valuable lesson for the future generations.

[/rant]

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BSEagle1
Agree totally. Humans have made themselves a plague to the planet with their ambition and greed, and the ones who want to try to fix it are too few and not in the right seats of power. Nature will clean itself as needed and we've only brought it on ourselves. Everyone keeps saying 'Oh! Technology will save us!' Well guess what, buddy? It's technology that caused all these problems in the first place. More technology? More problems will come up. Hydrogen power produces water, yes? What do we do with the water? It eventually goes into the oceans. So even if it was a viable option, guess what happens to livable land when the ocean level starts to rise? Don't forget the melting glaciers and icecaps. Hello, Waterworld.

But, it doesn't sadden me because it'd be for the greater good. Mankind could have been smart and restrained itself. But, no. Scientists just couldn't leave well enough alone and still continue to tamper and meddle, interfere with nature, not look ahead. I laugh when people call humans the smartest race on the planet...we may have scientific knowledge, sure. But when it comes to things that matter humans are foolish, and stupid.

Anyway. I dunno about the guy sitting in his posh office in the Sears building who thinks he's something because he has money, but I can bloody well take care of myself and my own and others better be able to do the same. I can build things with hand tools. I can walk places...boy can I walk places. And most importantly of all, I can learn how to dig a well (or have one, maybe two drilled before we're out of oil) for water. I can build a fire from scratch, and dangit I can build myself a greenhouse and have food year round. My girlfriend and I, as well as my family, are vegetarians...we'd live in fine harmony with the rest of the planet, something that should have been adopted in the first place if we really were the most intelligent race around.

In a way this won't be so bad at all; we will be returning to nature, those who survive...and maybe those who do will have learned a valuable lesson for the future generations.

[/rant]

Wow... I've seen naive before, but this takes the cake. Amazing. You're going last about 10 minutes "living in harmony with the rest of the planet" in a mud hut in a freezing winter after a bad harvest. Enjoy.

 

[Sheepathon]

bumpatronnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[dicontinueprohibbitingme]

Originally posted by: BSEagle1

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: chrisms
It seems as though the end of oil will be nature's way of fixing the population boom of humans.

That very well could be, and that would be too bad.

Hopefully we're smarter than that.......

And hopefully that's not too much to ask for...

Too many hopes........ :Q

Honestly why would that be too bad?

Agree totally. Humans have made themselves a plague to the planet with their ambition and greed, and the ones who want to try to fix it are too few and not in the right seats of power. Nature will clean itself as needed and we've only brought it on ourselves. Everyone keeps saying 'Oh! Technology will save us!' Well guess what, buddy? It's technology that caused all these problems in the first place. More technology? More problems will come up. Hydrogen power produces water, yes? What do we do with the water? It eventually goes into the oceans. So even if it was a viable option, guess what happens to livable land when the ocean level starts to rise? Don't forget the melting glaciers and icecaps. Hello, Waterworld.

But, it doesn't sadden me because it'd be for the greater good. Mankind could have been smart and restrained itself. But, no. Scientists just couldn't leave well enough alone and still continue to tamper and meddle, interfere with nature, not look ahead. I laugh when people call humans the smartest race on the planet...we may have scientific knowledge, sure. But when it comes to things that matter humans are foolish, and stupid.

Anyway. I dunno about the guy sitting in his posh office in the Sears building who thinks he's something because he has money, but I can bloody well take care of myself and my own and others better be able to do the same. I can build things with hand tools. I can walk places...boy can I walk places. And most importantly of all, I can learn how to dig a well (or have one, maybe two drilled before we're out of oil) for water. I can build a fire from scratch, and dangit I can build myself a greenhouse and have food year round. My girlfriend and I, as well as my family, are vegetarians...we'd live in fine harmony with the rest of the planet, something that should have been adopted in the first place if we really were the most intelligent race around.

In a way this won't be so bad at all; we will be returning to nature, those who survive...and maybe those who do will have learned a valuable lesson for the future generations.

[/rant]

Calm down there silly....that isn't what I meant.

Oh and I can do all those things too however you don't seem to take into account the number of people who will want to take what you have in your little mad max scenario.

 

[2cpuminimum]

Since this thread has been bumped again, I shall point out a few flaws in the article:
1. The article is incorrect on its assertion that ethanol is an energy losing proposition. Studies that say that are all using ancient data from before the atari 2600. Ethanol production already gains net energy.
2. Ethanol can also be produced from seaweed, so production is not limited by arable land or freshwater availability.
3. Hydrogen can be produced by microbes, and so is not limited by electricity or freshwater.
4. Increases in demand are not a mandatory inflation.
5. The article dramatically understates the importance of efficient vehicles, and its treatment of that issue seems to be written to decieve.
6. As oil prices rise, natural gas prices rise, since both are used for winter heat.
7. Wind energy does displace oil usage, just not directly.

Despite these flaws, the future the author fears may yet come to pass. I believe, however, that once gas prices hit about $10/gallon, ethanol production will ramp up more quickly than the article suggests. It may be inevitable at this point that there will be a few years during which gas prices will be extremely high and the poor will suffer greatly. I doubt this period will last more than five years. This time period will see a dramatic rise in usage of bicycles. Afterwards people will be more environmentally/energetically thoughtfull for a couple decades.