Beginning Of The Decline
Allgoodthings
Join Date: 2003-09-16 Member: 20932Members
Join Date: 2003-09-16 Member: 20932Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">The end of Oil</div> "Speculation over the actual size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves is reaching fever pitch as a major bank says the kingdom's - and the world's - biggest field, Gharwar, is in irreversible decline.
The Bank of Montreal's analyst Don Coxe, working from their Chicago office, is the first mainstream number-cruncher to say that Gharwar's days are fated."
<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/08B97BCF-7BE6-4F1D-A846-7ACB9B0F8894.htm' target='_blank'>Gharwar in decline</a>
*For the sake of this argument please do not discount this due to source, see forum rule 5*
I would seem that we have now crossed the Hubbard Peak, the end of the oil age is upon us. During 2003-2004 no new oil fields were discovered, a first in recorded history. With Gharwar in decline, Saudi oil is by default in decline, with Saudi oil in decline, so must the world's extractable oil supply also be in decline. This raises the question of what is the next step? Are we prepared? Have we (Americans) acknowledged this and are we prepared to begin making change?
First we must look at what the decline in oil will affect. The most obvious conclusion is that the price of gas will increase. This will mean that the suburban lifestyle will soon become unsustainable as the ability to drive to work, drive to buy groceries, drive to simply reach the border of the suburbs will no longer be viable. Travel will also be greatly affected as over seas travel is also dependant on oil, imports will be increasingly expensive as will domestic "foreign" goods. No longer will we be able to buy a "3000 mile" Cesar salad. But beyond transportation we must also look at how dependant we have grown on oil by products. Oil is currently the easiest and most available form of hydro carbons. What this means is that we use oil by products to create fertilizers, plastics, polyesters, industrial chemicals, etc. With oil no longer available we can no longer continue down the current agricultural independence path we current follow turning the deserts of California, Texas, New Mexico, etc into sponges for our fertilizers and imported water to grow the crops we can no longer even cost effectively transport. As it stands our internal transportation infrastructure is in shambles, we being a nation entirely dependent on high maintenance roadways and trucking, and a rail system that even the Balkans would be ashamed of.
Accepting that this is true, or at least partly true, what is the best course of action? Many of the highest ranking members of the current administration have a plan. The first step is what we are witnessing today with the invasion of the Middle East and the securing of the last major deposits of natural resources. (This dark view can be debated but it is spelled out quite clearly in the <a href='http://www.newamericancentury.org/' target='_blank'>Project for a New American Century</a> of which Jeb Bush, **** Cheney, Steve Forbes, Francis Fukuyama, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz are active and contribution members) Many are also rallying around alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen and corn, but unfortunately what many do not realize is that hydrogen is only a form of energy storage which requires natural gas to produce (also in decline) and corn requires more oil to grow than would be produced and requires more space to meet current oil consumption than the US has room to grow. Solar and wind can not even hope to produce the levels currently consumed today. Nuclear which is currently the only solution that comes even close to being capable of production in the levels required is so feared that it is likely only to be implemented when we have reached a major crisis and even then would take so long to build that we would be at least 15 years past the crisis fall that it would come online. (International note - China and India have already begun plans to bring several new reactors online within the next several years recognizing this problem ahead of us) The sad fact of the matter is that we would seem to be woefully unprepared for the changes that are to come, not in the next 50 years, not the next 20 years, but the next 5-10.
All of this being said what are you, the people it will be affecting, opinions on the matter? What do you think we as citizens must do? What sacrifices are you willing to make, or are you willing to make them at all? Is this a problem or is it just paranoid ravings of the far left and environmentalists?
The Bank of Montreal's analyst Don Coxe, working from their Chicago office, is the first mainstream number-cruncher to say that Gharwar's days are fated."
<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/08B97BCF-7BE6-4F1D-A846-7ACB9B0F8894.htm' target='_blank'>Gharwar in decline</a>
*For the sake of this argument please do not discount this due to source, see forum rule 5*
I would seem that we have now crossed the Hubbard Peak, the end of the oil age is upon us. During 2003-2004 no new oil fields were discovered, a first in recorded history. With Gharwar in decline, Saudi oil is by default in decline, with Saudi oil in decline, so must the world's extractable oil supply also be in decline. This raises the question of what is the next step? Are we prepared? Have we (Americans) acknowledged this and are we prepared to begin making change?
First we must look at what the decline in oil will affect. The most obvious conclusion is that the price of gas will increase. This will mean that the suburban lifestyle will soon become unsustainable as the ability to drive to work, drive to buy groceries, drive to simply reach the border of the suburbs will no longer be viable. Travel will also be greatly affected as over seas travel is also dependant on oil, imports will be increasingly expensive as will domestic "foreign" goods. No longer will we be able to buy a "3000 mile" Cesar salad. But beyond transportation we must also look at how dependant we have grown on oil by products. Oil is currently the easiest and most available form of hydro carbons. What this means is that we use oil by products to create fertilizers, plastics, polyesters, industrial chemicals, etc. With oil no longer available we can no longer continue down the current agricultural independence path we current follow turning the deserts of California, Texas, New Mexico, etc into sponges for our fertilizers and imported water to grow the crops we can no longer even cost effectively transport. As it stands our internal transportation infrastructure is in shambles, we being a nation entirely dependent on high maintenance roadways and trucking, and a rail system that even the Balkans would be ashamed of.
Accepting that this is true, or at least partly true, what is the best course of action? Many of the highest ranking members of the current administration have a plan. The first step is what we are witnessing today with the invasion of the Middle East and the securing of the last major deposits of natural resources. (This dark view can be debated but it is spelled out quite clearly in the <a href='http://www.newamericancentury.org/' target='_blank'>Project for a New American Century</a> of which Jeb Bush, **** Cheney, Steve Forbes, Francis Fukuyama, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz are active and contribution members) Many are also rallying around alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen and corn, but unfortunately what many do not realize is that hydrogen is only a form of energy storage which requires natural gas to produce (also in decline) and corn requires more oil to grow than would be produced and requires more space to meet current oil consumption than the US has room to grow. Solar and wind can not even hope to produce the levels currently consumed today. Nuclear which is currently the only solution that comes even close to being capable of production in the levels required is so feared that it is likely only to be implemented when we have reached a major crisis and even then would take so long to build that we would be at least 15 years past the crisis fall that it would come online. (International note - China and India have already begun plans to bring several new reactors online within the next several years recognizing this problem ahead of us) The sad fact of the matter is that we would seem to be woefully unprepared for the changes that are to come, not in the next 50 years, not the next 20 years, but the next 5-10.
All of this being said what are you, the people it will be affecting, opinions on the matter? What do you think we as citizens must do? What sacrifices are you willing to make, or are you willing to make them at all? Is this a problem or is it just paranoid ravings of the far left and environmentalists?
Comments
<!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
A new depression... only worldwide.
<!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not the fact that nuclear power isn't "safe" that makes me think it's not a reliable long term source for power, it's the fact that in order to product nuclear energy, you need uranium, and that stuff isn't exactly in a usable state when it's found. The refinement process requires so much energy (most of which is by oil driven machines), that the energy returned is far less overall than what most people think. Then, you have to start worrying about tons more nuclear waste.
And plus...how does that solve the problem with the nation's transportation system that's based around oil? I don't think that I'd feel very safe driving on a freeway with cars with mini-nuclear reactors on board...
Even as said about Nuclear energy, it's probably the only fallback we have. Sure, radiation and the need to dispose of the depleted rods and uranium itself, it's effective to an extent. Another Chernobyl wouldn't likely happen, if the workers there actually do their job correctly and go through procedure.
I’m sure they’ve been planning for this much longer then we have.
Although I agree people need to start walking more, this won't solve anything. Our whole economic system is based on transportation...<i>fast</i> transportation. You can't possibly think that all of the food you see in supermarkets is actually grown within walking radius of the store, right? Or, how many of you commute large distances to work? Can you imagine walking that distance everyday back and forth? Unless you redesign the nation into self sufficient sub communities, simply telling people to walk or ride a bike won't help. Our country has evolved too much being dependent on quick transportation.
And on the topic of nuclear waste not being <i>that</i> big of a problem, you have a point. It's not as big of a deal than my other point that nuclear energy isn't as "efficient" as most people think it is. And let's say that hypothetically nuclear power does expand and become our nation's primary source for power...what's keeping nuclear material, which is rarely found in a usable isotope I may add, from becoming the next monopolized commodity in place of oil?
As for power plants, we've got nuclear (nuclear actually releases less radiation into the atmosphere than coal), coal, hydroelectric, tidal, geothermal, wind, and solar power plants that we could build.
I think the worst that could happen is that developing nations (i.e. China and India) will take a big hit because they don't have the cash to switch over to more expensive means of producing power as easily as we can.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The nation can start walking. God knows apparently we need it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->I hope you realize that EVERYTHING has energy as part of its cost. As the cost of energy goes up, the price of everything else goes up too. It's not just high gas prices.
First non-American country to perfect efficient fusion wins a free invasion from America.
Although I agree people need to start walking more, this won't solve anything. Our whole economic system is based on transportation...<i>fast</i> transportation. You can't possibly think that all of the food you see in supermarkets is actually grown within walking radius of the store, right? Or, how many of you commute large distances to work? Can you imagine walking that distance everyday back and forth? Unless you redesign the nation into self sufficient sub communities, simply telling people to walk or ride a bike won't help. Our country has evolved too much being dependent on quick transportation.
And on the topic of nuclear waste not being <i>that</i> big of a problem, you have a point. It's not as big of a deal than my other point that nuclear energy isn't as "efficient" as most people think it is. And let's say that hypothetically nuclear power does expand and become our nation's primary source for power...what's keeping nuclear material, which is rarely found in a usable isotope I may add, from becoming the next monopolized commodity in place of oil? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was mostly sarcasm, and I'm aware of the dependance of quck transportation. Transcontinental transportation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for power plants, we've got nuclear (nuclear actually releases less radiation into the atmosphere than coal), coal, hydroelectric, tidal, geothermal, wind, and solar power plants that we could build.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We can build those, but one; Who wants to live next to a Coal plant? We've already tapped Hydroelectricity almost, and even then, we'd need more running water sources, which we don't have. Big running water running source. Wind, there'd have to be more high area to build on, and as for solar, we haven't necessarily perfected it yet. We'd have to develop massive, efficient storage batteries for solar power, first.
While it is true that there are vast quantities (though not that vast) of oil still untapped, unfortunately we simply do not have the technology to drill them effectively. The Alberta flats could be drilled today but unfortunately it would take more oil in extraction than would be produced. The same holds true for most of the "reserve" supplies. As for the price going up slowly, trends in the last 3 years would seem to indicate that slow is not the path oil and gas are taking. But there are larger implications than simply prices going up or the need for a change in energy production. With out the types of energy abundance we have today (or yesterday as reports would indicate) energy transfer is going to become increasingly more difficult as we will lack the easy energy required to make the change. As for hydrogen, again what most people do not realize is that hydrogen is a form of energy storage, not energy production. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than is stored within the fuel cell. This is true for almost all alternative energy sources for transportation across the board. On a last note there is another problem that trying to "switch" over does not address. Current transportation methods are highly inefficient. The cost to maintain roadways both monetarily and in energy units is simply astonishing. Roadways require constant upkeep and maintenance and are largely oil based in and of them selves (several types of roadway asphalt are partly derived from oil).
First non-American country to perfect efficient fusion wins a free invasion from America. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As much of a patriot as I am, quoted for probable and unfortunate truth.
First non-American citizen to perfect fusion technology comes over to the US where he wins a contract worth billions.
I'm just assuming that anti-particles will 'react' with any kind of matter and release energy, while in the process annihilating both the matter and the anti-matter. That'd be a great way to eliminate some rather unpleasant by-prodcuts of industrial processes.
You can't manufacture antimatter in order to create energy from it. That violates the laws of thermodynamics.
That doesn't violate a law of thermodynamics. E=mc^2. The matter is converted into energy, which can be converted back into matter. The laws of conservation of matter and energy holds.
On a brighter note it has recently been discovered that semiconductors can generate electricity from heat much more effective than we thought.
A new generation of nuclearpowerplants might emerge soon.
That doesn't violate a law of thermodynamics. E=mc^2. The matter is converted into energy, which can be converted back into matter. The laws of conservation of matter and energy holds. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anti-particles dissapear and re-appear out of nothingness. That violates E=MC^2 also, but its been observed.
This would make a terrific novel.
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anti-particles dissapear and re-appear out of nothingness. That violates E=MC^2 also, but its been observed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With knowledge ever-expanding it is possible that "nothingness" is really something we just don't understand yet. Or maybe E=mc^2 is out-dated because of a lack of knowledge when this law was created...
~ DarkATi
The best we know is that they are propterties of matter and energy, but that's all we know.
Explain inertia, anyone here, take a crack at it. (note: don't describe it, explain it)