Is this the end of cheap oil?
05-12-11, 10:36 AM
#101
Banned
It's cyclical. Have to remember there are vast untapped resources such as oil sands and oil shales which are well known and not being pursued, simply because the demand isn't there - it is cheaper to pump the easier source. Once demand and price get a bit higher, oil shales / sands become economical and the price will drop again, for quite awhile.
Myself? Meh. I bike to work because I love it, not because I have an ideological belief in it. I don't begrudge anyone their car or SUV. My wife drives a car, the cost of gas is small compared to the other day to day costs (food, housing, insurance) so it really doesn't affect us.
Myself? Meh. I bike to work because I love it, not because I have an ideological belief in it. I don't begrudge anyone their car or SUV. My wife drives a car, the cost of gas is small compared to the other day to day costs (food, housing, insurance) so it really doesn't affect us.
1 million barrels per day of conventional crude oil is not the same as 1 million barrels per day of oil sands is economically, energy content wise, or leverage wise. Same deal with shale, lower grades of coal, and any of the other tradeoffs being made these days because the good stuff has already been used or in decline.
05-12-11, 11:04 AM
#102
Prefers Cicero
oil sands and oil shales which are well known and not being pursued, simply because the demand isn't there - it is cheaper to pump the easier source. Once demand and price get a bit higher, oil shales / sands become economical and the price will drop again, for quite awhile.
05-12-11, 11:06 AM
#103
Prefers Cicero
05-12-11, 11:32 AM
#105
Senior Member
Actually, even if you don't own/rent a car and never drive, you too receive the benefits from the flexibility that the road infrastructure provides. After all, that infrastructure, and all of that flexibility is a major component of how ALL ECONOMIES FUNCTION. Want to eliminate environmental impact? Then eliminate the human species... As long as man has existed, he has made a negative impact on the environment... And if that sounds like a good idea to you, just line up to be the first one on the chopping block...
05-12-11, 12:05 PM
#106
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
For an example, do you recall seeing images of the arid, inhospitable landscape in Iraq during the recent war? Perhaps you might want to read early written records that describe the lush, verdant landscape it was at the dawn of civilization... While natural variations in climate may have had some impact, the consensus seems to be that early man's intense agricultural cultivation of that land is a major contributing factor. (can't provide specific cites for this, but a perusal of past issues of National Geographic, Scientific American, Science, and Nature should turn up the articles I remember.
Another example is the apparent systematic eradication of the large mammals on the North American continent. While the evidence is not conclusive, the disappearance of many large species (such as the whooly mamoth) coincides with the arrival of **** sapiens on the continent... (same sources as previous)
Later in the time frame is the denuding of the four corners region by the ancestral puebloans (anasazi, hohokum, etc). Dendrochronology of the timbers used in their Great Houses show an interesting pattern. The construction that occurred in later stages required timbers from ever further away from the construction cites. Indeed many of the locations for the early timbers are almost completely denuded of forests in later periods... And these were a people whose descendants lived until fairly recently in much the same manner, yet personally claim (with occasional agreement by modern environmentalists) that they "lived in harmony" with nature.
In short basic bilogical function, animals consume resources and produce waste.--hence negative impact.
05-12-11, 01:36 PM
#107
Fat Guy Rolling
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Louisville Kentucky
Posts: 2,434
Bikes: Bacchetta Agio, 80s Raleigh Record single-speed, Surly Big Dummy
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Imagine the horrible impact the first life on Earth had. They polluted the atmosphere with a bunch of oxygen, a very volatile chemical. 
05-12-11, 04:36 PM
#108
Sophomoric Member
Thank goodness we're now digging up all those early life forms and burning them in our cars. Pretty soon we'll have the atmosphere back the way it used to be.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
05-12-11, 04:40 PM
#109
Βanned.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 620
Bikes: 1976 Dawes Galaxy, 1993 Trek 950 Single Track and Made-to-Measure Reynolds 753 road bike with Campag throughout.
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Nothing magic, just a review of the occasional anthropology, archeaology, and/or history article. There appears to be ample evidence that man (and all animals) impact their environments. While I don't personally view that impact as negative, certain environmentalists do. Such impacts are a consumption of resources, destruction of species, destruction/conversion of habitat...
For an example, do you recall seeing images of the arid, inhospitable landscape in Iraq during the recent war? Perhaps you might want to read early written records that describe the lush, verdant landscape it was at the dawn of civilization... While natural variations in climate may have had some impact, the consensus seems to be that early man's intense agricultural cultivation of that land is a major contributing factor. (can't provide specific cites for this, but a perusal of past issues of National Geographic, Scientific American, Science, and Nature should turn up the articles I remember.
Another example is the apparent systematic eradication of the large mammals on the North American continent. While the evidence is not conclusive, the disappearance of many large species (such as the whooly mamoth) coincides with the arrival of **** sapiens on the continent... (same sources as previous)
Later in the time frame is the denuding of the four corners region by the ancestral puebloans (anasazi, hohokum, etc). Dendrochronology of the timbers used in their Great Houses show an interesting pattern. The construction that occurred in later stages required timbers from ever further away from the construction cites. Indeed many of the locations for the early timbers are almost completely denuded of forests in later periods... And these were a people whose descendants lived until fairly recently in much the same manner, yet personally claim (with occasional agreement by modern environmentalists) that they "lived in harmony" with nature.
In short basic bilogical function, animals consume resources and produce waste.--hence negative impact.
For an example, do you recall seeing images of the arid, inhospitable landscape in Iraq during the recent war? Perhaps you might want to read early written records that describe the lush, verdant landscape it was at the dawn of civilization... While natural variations in climate may have had some impact, the consensus seems to be that early man's intense agricultural cultivation of that land is a major contributing factor. (can't provide specific cites for this, but a perusal of past issues of National Geographic, Scientific American, Science, and Nature should turn up the articles I remember.
Another example is the apparent systematic eradication of the large mammals on the North American continent. While the evidence is not conclusive, the disappearance of many large species (such as the whooly mamoth) coincides with the arrival of **** sapiens on the continent... (same sources as previous)
Later in the time frame is the denuding of the four corners region by the ancestral puebloans (anasazi, hohokum, etc). Dendrochronology of the timbers used in their Great Houses show an interesting pattern. The construction that occurred in later stages required timbers from ever further away from the construction cites. Indeed many of the locations for the early timbers are almost completely denuded of forests in later periods... And these were a people whose descendants lived until fairly recently in much the same manner, yet personally claim (with occasional agreement by modern environmentalists) that they "lived in harmony" with nature.
In short basic bilogical function, animals consume resources and produce waste.--hence negative impact.
In general nature has evolved biodiversity so that the waste of one species is a resource for another species. It is abject and utter nonsense to equate natural wastes with those of humans. We concentrate toxic wastes that are not useful to any currently evolved species - most egregious are plastics and nuclear waste, that will linger for thousands or tens of thousands of years.
If [in the future] you want to know the reason why everything is going wrong - look in the mirror and look at the people around you, doing what they do.
__________________
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
05-12-11, 04:41 PM
#110
Sophomoric Member
you are forgetting or omitting leverage or EROI if you will as well as neglecting to deal with what money really represents
1 million barrels per day of conventional crude oil is not the same as 1 million barrels per day of oil sands is economically, energy content wise, or leverage wise. Same deal with shale, lower grades of coal, and any of the other tradeoffs being made these days because the good stuff has already been used or in decline.
1 million barrels per day of conventional crude oil is not the same as 1 million barrels per day of oil sands is economically, energy content wise, or leverage wise. Same deal with shale, lower grades of coal, and any of the other tradeoffs being made these days because the good stuff has already been used or in decline.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
05-12-11, 05:31 PM
#111
Banned
This is a good point. Conventional fossil fuels did give us "free" energy. The newer forms such as oil sands actually cost as much energy (or more) to dig up as thay provide. Their only good point is that after a lot of expensive processing, they give us a convenient liquid that we can pump into our automobiles.
oil sands do not have enough leverage
People say prices will drive further extraction of tougher to get sources all the time as though its dogma, they are mistaken. When you are dealing with your primary source of energy you are basically as close as you can get to a one to one relationship with what money represents which is energy expended over time, ie work. This means that if that energy source costs you as many energy units to produce as you get in return then you won't be doing it, not on any scale worth talking about. It doesn't have to get down to 1:1 either, our life as we know it has to have up around 4:1 to 6:1 minimum or things start breaking down. You need this much extra leverage because there is lots of waste, conversions, and distance between the source and the end user. The US energy grid alone loses around 65% of the energy put into it, liquid fuel usage in autos has similar results. That waste has to come from somewhere, leverage is what allows us to do this. Who cares how much you waste if you have plenty left over afterward, problem is that leverage is dropping like a dead pigeon.
The oil sands, heavy tar, and other bottom of the barrel hydrocarbons are being used now only because they are subsidized and we still have enough leverage from conventional oil and coal to offset the costs, as that leverage recedes we will find out that hard way that these alternatives like shale and oil sands aren't practical or feasible at all. As leverage drops it becomes increasingly important to avoid conversions from one form to another, transporting fuels great distances, and allowing lots of waste to occur, you simply cannot afford it. Unfortunately we have locked ourselves into a living arrangement and economic arrangement that has no future under these conditions.
05-12-11, 05:53 PM
#112
Βanned.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 620
Bikes: 1976 Dawes Galaxy, 1993 Trek 950 Single Track and Made-to-Measure Reynolds 753 road bike with Campag throughout.
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
__________________
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
05-12-11, 06:54 PM
#113
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
you can't run modern life without enough leverage, that is the point
oil sands do not have enough leverage
People say prices will drive further extraction of tougher to get sources all the time as though its dogma, they are mistaken. When you are dealing with your primary source of energy you are basically as close as you can get to a one to one relationship with what money represents which is energy expended over time, ie work. This means that if that energy source costs you as many energy units to produce as you get in return then you won't be doing it, not on any scale worth talking about. It doesn't have to get down to 1:1 either, our life as we know it has to have up around 4:1 to 6:1 minimum or things start breaking down. You need this much extra leverage because there is lots of waste, conversions, and distance between the source and the end user. The US energy grid alone loses around 65% of the energy put into it, liquid fuel usage in autos has similar results. That waste has to come from somewhere, leverage is what allows us to do this. Who cares how much you waste if you have plenty left over afterward, problem is that leverage is dropping like a dead pigeon.
The oil sands, heavy tar, and other bottom of the barrel hydrocarbons are being used now only because they are subsidized and we still have enough leverage from conventional oil and coal to offset the costs, as that leverage recedes we will find out that hard way that these alternatives like shale and oil sands aren't practical or feasible at all. As leverage drops it becomes increasingly important to avoid conversions from one form to another, transporting fuels great distances, and allowing lots of waste to occur, you simply cannot afford it. Unfortunately we have locked ourselves into a living arrangement and economic arrangement that has no future under these conditions.
oil sands do not have enough leverage
People say prices will drive further extraction of tougher to get sources all the time as though its dogma, they are mistaken. When you are dealing with your primary source of energy you are basically as close as you can get to a one to one relationship with what money represents which is energy expended over time, ie work. This means that if that energy source costs you as many energy units to produce as you get in return then you won't be doing it, not on any scale worth talking about. It doesn't have to get down to 1:1 either, our life as we know it has to have up around 4:1 to 6:1 minimum or things start breaking down. You need this much extra leverage because there is lots of waste, conversions, and distance between the source and the end user. The US energy grid alone loses around 65% of the energy put into it, liquid fuel usage in autos has similar results. That waste has to come from somewhere, leverage is what allows us to do this. Who cares how much you waste if you have plenty left over afterward, problem is that leverage is dropping like a dead pigeon.
The oil sands, heavy tar, and other bottom of the barrel hydrocarbons are being used now only because they are subsidized and we still have enough leverage from conventional oil and coal to offset the costs, as that leverage recedes we will find out that hard way that these alternatives like shale and oil sands aren't practical or feasible at all. As leverage drops it becomes increasingly important to avoid conversions from one form to another, transporting fuels great distances, and allowing lots of waste to occur, you simply cannot afford it. Unfortunately we have locked ourselves into a living arrangement and economic arrangement that has no future under these conditions.
There is a great deal mistaken about your analysis, not the least of which is that fossil fuels represent the only one potential source of energy for our economy/transportation. Well that and a failure to acknowledge the impact of technology on the problems you present.
05-12-11, 07:02 PM
#114
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding something so simple? Also, it sounds a lot like James Kunstler.
05-12-11, 07:47 PM
#115
Banned
Must be miserable living with such a bleak outlook. I simply don't understand such a defeatest mindset...
There is a great deal mistaken about your analysis, not the least of which is that fossil fuels represent the only one potential source of energy for our economy/transportation. Well that and a failure to acknowledge the impact of technology on the problems you present.
There is a great deal mistaken about your analysis, not the least of which is that fossil fuels represent the only one potential source of energy for our economy/transportation. Well that and a failure to acknowledge the impact of technology on the problems you present.
05-12-11, 07:57 PM
#116
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
All three of your examples are of humans causing largely permanent environmental damage. Nothing to argue with there. There are obviously many more examples and one could also include the growing rate of extinctions that we are causing -- both directly (e.g. over fishing) and indirectly (e.g. introduction of invasive species) -- however in your conclusion you use the much more general term 'animals'.
In general nature has evolved biodiversity so that the waste of one species is a resource for another species. It is abject and utter nonsense to equate natural wastes with those of humans. We concentrate toxic wastes that are not useful to any currently evolved species - most egregious are plastics and nuclear waste, that will linger for thousands or tens of thousands of years.
If [in the future] you want to know the reason why everything is going wrong - look in the mirror and look at the people around you, doing what they do.
In general nature has evolved biodiversity so that the waste of one species is a resource for another species. It is abject and utter nonsense to equate natural wastes with those of humans. We concentrate toxic wastes that are not useful to any currently evolved species - most egregious are plastics and nuclear waste, that will linger for thousands or tens of thousands of years.
If [in the future] you want to know the reason why everything is going wrong - look in the mirror and look at the people around you, doing what they do.
And nature itself produce as many toxins as man and occasionally in far greater quantities than anything man can accomplish.
And frankly there is nothing particularly 'bad' about current conditions. It just a bunch of people frightened about things they just don't understand. Much like the early primitives frightened by thunder and making up explainations to deal with it.
05-12-11, 08:05 PM
#117
Banned.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Southern california
Posts: 3,498
Bikes: Lapierre CF Sensium 400. Jamis Ventura Sport. Trek 800. Giant Cypress.
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I am not typically a fan of MSNBC. I believe they are the Fox news of the left but they are indicating that the end of cheap oil may not be just around the corner.
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34770285...e-endless-oil/
So once again based on the original statement or post it isn’t an indicator of this, indicating right now, being the end of cheap oil. For the US at least what we consider expensive is still cheap compared to Europe.
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34770285...e-endless-oil/
So once again based on the original statement or post it isn’t an indicator of this, indicating right now, being the end of cheap oil. For the US at least what we consider expensive is still cheap compared to Europe.
05-12-11, 08:22 PM
#118
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Ok, so explain the difference between technology and the physical properties of our fossil fuel and other energy sources. Does technology alter the energy content of the fossil fuels we use? Is technology an energy source? What kind of leverage is available from the various energy sources available to us? What has the steady decline in leverage of the various we already use now done to the economy over the last 30 years? How does the leverage of alternatives compare with the leverage we enjoy with fossil fuels now?
Existing sources such as nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind etc are still in their infancy in development. There are many others. New, undreamt of technologies will undoutably arise.
You very concept of 'leverage' has as a basic assumption of a closed energy system. Yet ignores that there are far more untapped sources of energy than the small fraction of sources utilized by man now.
Even your dismissal of oil sands has a fault of relying on current technology and economic conditions. Something as simple as the discovery of a new process that improves the efficiency of extraction could alter the fundamental economic viability.
The only certainty is that some human beings innovate while the rest sit and pontificate. Folks like you remind me of the vast history of doomsayers crying that the world is conning to an end. I remember reading about graphiti in pompei saying just that. Yet we are still here...
05-12-11, 08:26 PM
#119
Banned
What you describe as 'physical' limitations of fossil fuel are simply not relevent. Technology can alter the economic equations. Improve effectiveness of exist sources and generate new ones.
You very concept of 'leverage' has as a basic assumption of a closed energy system. Yet ignores that there are far more untapped sources of energy than the small fraction of sources utilized by man now.
Even your dismissal of oil sands has a fault of relying on current technology and economic conditions. Something as simple as the discovery of a new process that improves the efficiency of extraction could alter the fundamental economic viability.
The only certainty is that some human beings innovate while the rest sit and pontificate. Folks like you remind me of the vast history of doomsayers crying that the world is conning to an end. I remember reading about graphiti in pompei saying just that. Yet we are still here...
You very concept of 'leverage' has as a basic assumption of a closed energy system. Yet ignores that there are far more untapped sources of energy than the small fraction of sources utilized by man now.
Even your dismissal of oil sands has a fault of relying on current technology and economic conditions. Something as simple as the discovery of a new process that improves the efficiency of extraction could alter the fundamental economic viability.
The only certainty is that some human beings innovate while the rest sit and pontificate. Folks like you remind me of the vast history of doomsayers crying that the world is conning to an end. I remember reading about graphiti in pompei saying just that. Yet we are still here...
05-12-11, 09:11 PM
#120
In the right lane
What you describe as 'physical' limitations of fossil fuel are simply not relevent. Technology can alter the economic equations. Improve effectiveness of exist sources and generate new ones.
Existing sources such as nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind etc are still in their infancy in development. There are many others. New, undreamt of technologies will undoutably arise.
You very concept of 'leverage' has as a basic assumption of a closed energy system. Yet ignores that there are far more untapped sources of energy than the small fraction of sources utilized by man now.
Even your dismissal of oil sands has a fault of relying on current technology and economic conditions. Something as simple as the discovery of a new process that improves the efficiency of extraction could alter the fundamental economic viability.
The only certainty is that some human beings innovate while the rest sit and pontificate. Folks like you remind me of the vast history of doomsayers crying that the world is conning to an end. I remember reading about graphiti in pompei saying just that. Yet we are still here...
Existing sources such as nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind etc are still in their infancy in development. There are many others. New, undreamt of technologies will undoutably arise.
You very concept of 'leverage' has as a basic assumption of a closed energy system. Yet ignores that there are far more untapped sources of energy than the small fraction of sources utilized by man now.
Even your dismissal of oil sands has a fault of relying on current technology and economic conditions. Something as simple as the discovery of a new process that improves the efficiency of extraction could alter the fundamental economic viability.
The only certainty is that some human beings innovate while the rest sit and pontificate. Folks like you remind me of the vast history of doomsayers crying that the world is conning to an end. I remember reading about graphiti in pompei saying just that. Yet we are still here...
While technological advances have helped recoup some marginal wells, the combinations of ever yo-yoing prices, tight supply, the scarcity of real information on the state of the resource from countries like Saudi Arabia and the serious shortage of investment in other forms of energy... all this tells me we are heading for an era where fossil fuel will be available, but not for the average joe. It seems to be a resource where demand will always outstrip availability.
Also... you talk about untapped sources of energy (petroleum I assume). Where exactly?
05-13-11, 07:31 AM
#121
Prefers Cicero
Nothing magic, just a review of the occasional anthropology, archeaology, and/or history article. There appears to be ample evidence that man (and all animals) impact their environments. While I don't personally view that impact as negative, certain environmentalists do. Such impacts are a consumption of resources, destruction of species, destruction/conversion of habitat...
For an example, do you recall seeing images of the arid, inhospitable landscape in Iraq during the recent war? Perhaps you might want to read early written records that describe the lush, verdant landscape it was at the dawn of civilization... While natural variations in climate may have had some impact, the consensus seems to be that early man's intense agricultural cultivation of that land is a major contributing factor. (can't provide specific cites for this, but a perusal of past issues of National Geographic, Scientific American, Science, and Nature should turn up the articles I remember.
Another example is the apparent systematic eradication of the large mammals on the North American continent. While the evidence is not conclusive, the disappearance of many large species (such as the whooly mamoth) coincides with the arrival of **** sapiens on the continent... (same sources as previous)
Later in the time frame is the denuding of the four corners region by the ancestral puebloans (anasazi, hohokum, etc). Dendrochronology of the timbers used in their Great Houses show an interesting pattern. The construction that occurred in later stages required timbers from ever further away from the construction cites. Indeed many of the locations for the early timbers are almost completely denuded of forests in later periods... And these were a people whose descendants lived until fairly recently in much the same manner, yet personally claim (with occasional agreement by modern environmentalists) that they "lived in harmony" with nature.
In short basic bilogical function, animals consume resources and produce waste.--hence negative impact.
For an example, do you recall seeing images of the arid, inhospitable landscape in Iraq during the recent war? Perhaps you might want to read early written records that describe the lush, verdant landscape it was at the dawn of civilization... While natural variations in climate may have had some impact, the consensus seems to be that early man's intense agricultural cultivation of that land is a major contributing factor. (can't provide specific cites for this, but a perusal of past issues of National Geographic, Scientific American, Science, and Nature should turn up the articles I remember.
Another example is the apparent systematic eradication of the large mammals on the North American continent. While the evidence is not conclusive, the disappearance of many large species (such as the whooly mamoth) coincides with the arrival of **** sapiens on the continent... (same sources as previous)
Later in the time frame is the denuding of the four corners region by the ancestral puebloans (anasazi, hohokum, etc). Dendrochronology of the timbers used in their Great Houses show an interesting pattern. The construction that occurred in later stages required timbers from ever further away from the construction cites. Indeed many of the locations for the early timbers are almost completely denuded of forests in later periods... And these were a people whose descendants lived until fairly recently in much the same manner, yet personally claim (with occasional agreement by modern environmentalists) that they "lived in harmony" with nature.
In short basic bilogical function, animals consume resources and produce waste.--hence negative impact.
Last edited by cooker; 05-13-11 at 11:27 AM.
05-13-11, 07:36 AM
#122
Prefers Cicero
05-13-11, 07:52 AM
#123
Fat Guy Rolling
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Louisville Kentucky
Posts: 2,434
Bikes: Bacchetta Agio, 80s Raleigh Record single-speed, Surly Big Dummy
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
My point was that most life on Earth will change the earth. We are changing it because we are relatively large animals, and there are six (seven?) billion of us.
We would damage the environment without technology. On the other hand, our numbers would have never reached billions without technology. We would have starved to death.
We will adapt to the lack of extractable energy. It won't be pretty, but the human race will survive - probably in smaller numbers.
05-13-11, 08:09 AM
#124
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm rather surprised that you present such an apocalyptic vision in such a blase manner, or in fact almost as if you relish it. The mythology of early humans living in harmony with nature is of course bogus, but it is certainly the case that they weren't nearly as efficient as we are at destroying it. Some of us would like to reverse that trend before the entire planet looks like Iraq's deserts, a pipe dream perhaps, but what is the alternative? What are your plans or goals for the future of humanity?
So its our numbers that present the "problem" That leaves two possibilities. We utilize our technology to find solutions to our short term resource problems, or we realize that most of us have to die...
Which do you think most would prefer?
Oh, I have no "plans" or "goals" for the future of humanity... I have faith in the intelligence and ingenuity that at least a few of the species exhibit to find technological solutions. If they can't or don't the outcome is inevitable and not worth worrying about...
05-13-11, 08:29 AM
#125
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
While technological advances have helped recoup some marginal wells, the combinations of ever yo-yoing prices, tight supply, the scarcity of real information on the state of the resource from countries like Saudi Arabia and the serious shortage of investment in other forms of energy... all this tells me we are heading for an era where fossil fuel will be available, but not for the average joe. It seems to be a resource where demand will always outstrip availability.
Nope, not talking petroleum. There are enormous energy sources available for the tapping. The amount of solar energy falling on the planet in a single day far exceeds the level of energy consumption of the entire human species in a full year... Many natural forces, such as wind energy, wave (oceans) energy, geothermal, etc... are largely untapped. Then we have manufactured sources; nuclear being the best short term source, bio-fuels, etc... Granted all of these sources have limitations that are the reasons they are not currently being extensive used, but those limitations are a combination of technical and/or political. Both can be overcome if sufficient need/desire is available.
