Oil Versus something else?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Oil Versus something else?

1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Profile Dr Imaginario
Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 11
Posts: 172
Credit: 22,735
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1141994 - Posted: 18 Aug 2011, 8:40:22 UTC

Just read some article that Venezuela is sitting in oil reserves larger than the ones Saudi Arabia has.
I wonder how they will manage such amount of oil, as it seems that mankind will be oil dependent for some time.
Also if you look to the current leaders of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, well they are not leaders they are dictators. The only thought that counts is what their own.
Funny that the Democratic countries, US and European Union countries they can even create wars with minor countries, but I don’t see any action against Saudi Arabia or Venezuela where there are no human rights at all.
If our near future will depend on people like those, what kind of future will we have? Why do the so called old democracies support indirectly such regimes?
Maybe they should be called old hypocrisies?
Another discussion point is what are the alternatives to oil, nuclear power?
My point of view is that I would prefer to have Nuclear Plants, make them more clean, more safe than to be dependent of Oil.
And what can be used to replace oil in other sectors? As oil is used to produce a lot of raw materials to industry, like the common plastic.

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1630
Credit: 575,274
RAC: 334
United States
Message 1142013 - Posted: 18 Aug 2011, 10:43:49 UTC
Last modified: 18 Aug 2011, 10:44:31 UTC

Oil didn't get to the top of the pile as a fuel source due to the scheming of evil corporate executives. At the time that the automobile emerged as the individual man's preferred means of transportation several other means of powering the beast were being toyed with. Oil and it's derivitive gasoline delivered then the biggest bang for your buck and so far it still does. Whales were being hunted to extinction so homes could have light after the sun went down. The direction we have gone since then has been highly criticised but when looking back I don't see where any other option was viable short of going back to the horse and buggy and staying at the pre-industrial level.

Progress like most everything else travels along the path of least resistance. And that path has lead us to where we are now. If and when a viable alternative power source makes it's way to everyday people things may get better. In my opinion oil or coal or the splitting of atoms is not the underlying problem. The problem is there are too many people trying to live off the increasingly limited resources this planet can provide. Either we find a way to get the rate of increase under control and reversed or "mother nature" will. The world's population has grown from about 125 million at the dawn of the industrial age to a staggering 7 billion now. So the only way to feed all these hungry individuals is to use every means possible to continue to increase food production. It may be easy for some to advocate the return to consuming only "naturally" grown food but the reality is that if we did more than three quarters of the world's population would starve to death.

So unless we are willing to have even more starvation than already occurs we are locked on this path where ever it leads us. I just hope I am right in my gut feeling that there is massively more oil below the surface of this planet than the mainstream geological engineers are estimating and it will last until that first fusion powerplant makes more energy than it consumes and a vastly smaller human population is alive to enjoy the future.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1142085 - Posted: 18 Aug 2011, 15:03:00 UTC - in response to Message 1142013.


So unless we are willing to have even more starvation than already occurs we are locked on this path where ever it leads us. I just hope I am right in my gut feeling that there is massively more oil below the surface of this planet than the mainstream geological engineers are estimating and it will last until that first fusion powerplant makes more energy than it consumes and a vastly smaller human population is alive to enjoy the future.

All living things tend to grow and multiply. I'd like to think that the work by SETI and the space agencies NASA, RFSA, CNSA, ROSCOSMOS, ASAL, DNSC, DLR, ISA, ASI, ESA, CNES, PASA, CANSA, ISRO etc. etc. etc. will allow us the option of growing and multiplying outwards rather than shrivel and die inwards as the resources of this planet are depleted.

____________

flaming balloons

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1630
Credit: 575,274
RAC: 334
United States
Message 1142116 - Posted: 18 Aug 2011, 16:09:06 UTC - in response to Message 1142085.


So unless we are willing to have even more starvation than already occurs we are locked on this path where ever it leads us. I just hope I am right in my gut feeling that there is massively more oil below the surface of this planet than the mainstream geological engineers are estimating and it will last until that first fusion powerplant makes more energy than it consumes and a vastly smaller human population is alive to enjoy the future.

All living things tend to grow and multiply. I'd like to think that the work by SETI and the space agencies NASA, RFSA, CNSA, ROSCOSMOS, ASAL, DNSC, DLR, ISA, ASI, ESA, CNES, PASA, CANSA, ISRO etc. etc. etc. will allow us the option of growing and multiplying outwards rather than shrivel and die inwards as the resources of this planet are depleted.

Have you ever seen what happens in a Petre dish when a bacteria colony is allowed uncontrolled growth. They end up choking on their own waste and die. We will reach critical mass long before we are capable of moving off planet to other worlds.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Profile Dr Imaginario
Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 11
Posts: 172
Credit: 22,735
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1142132 - Posted: 18 Aug 2011, 17:02:31 UTC - in response to Message 1142116.

Bob,
Is true that human population is growing and the planet is getting lower and lower in resources.
But one of my questions is that most of this resources are in the hands of politicians without any human values.
Oil dependency will still be around for a few decades, and I'm positive that agriculture is finding a way to increase production and do short the production cycle.
However what you suggest for the control of population? who will decide this? United Nations? the country governments that sometimes are dubious?
mankind is in a crossroad, and a revolution is needed-. What this revolution will be I don't know, but I hope that will be one that would make us better as human beings.

Profile GalaxyIce
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 May 06
Posts: 8928
Credit: 1,361,057
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1142173 - Posted: 18 Aug 2011, 18:13:41 UTC - in response to Message 1142116.
Last modified: 18 Aug 2011, 18:14:28 UTC


So unless we are willing to have even more starvation than already occurs we are locked on this path where ever it leads us. I just hope I am right in my gut feeling that there is massively more oil below the surface of this planet than the mainstream geological engineers are estimating and it will last until that first fusion powerplant makes more energy than it consumes and a vastly smaller human population is alive to enjoy the future.

All living things tend to grow and multiply. I'd like to think that the work by SETI and the space agencies NASA, RFSA, CNSA, ROSCOSMOS, ASAL, DNSC, DLR, ISA, ASI, ESA, CNES, PASA, CANSA, ISRO etc. etc. etc. will allow us the option of growing and multiplying outwards rather than shrivel and die inwards as the resources of this planet are depleted.

Have you ever seen what happens in a Petre dish when a bacteria colony is allowed uncontrolled growth. They end up choking on their own waste and die. We will reach critical mass long before we are capable of moving off planet to other worlds.

I point to the title of this thread 'Oil Versus something else?'. In the petre dish there is nothing else. Outside the petre dish we are human. We don't cull populations or watch it choke and die. We don't look at famine in the horn of Africa and watch it choke and die. Most of the civilized world will help where we can. We are past the ideas where, eg, in N.Korea many starve also. There is always something else. Renewable enery, nuclear energy, advances in science and agriculture. Humans will always find something else even if the oil runs out and they don't find a way to disperse onto the petre dishes in the universe.
____________

flaming balloons

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,287,856
RAC: 3,838
United States
Message 1142655 - Posted: 19 Aug 2011, 17:53:30 UTC - in response to Message 1142173.

Clearly you have not watch the Norquistican party in operation <rueful smile>


We don't cull populations or watch it choke and die.


____________

Profile Lint trapProject donor
Send message
Joined: 30 May 03
Posts: 867
Credit: 27,400,238
RAC: 24,710
United States
Message 1142696 - Posted: 19 Aug 2011, 18:58:15 UTC


There is no "something else". No one substance replaces oil completely.

Oil is used in the manufacture of thousands of products. And the manufacturing plants themselves will go idle when the oil runs out.

Oil is not just used for fuel, but is part of many lubrication products, tires, belts (fan, serpentine) for motors, and other products needed just to make all the products it is used in.

Oil is undoubtedly the one single product that has put humanity where it is today. In population numbers (food, clothing and the necessary supply chains) and in technology.

No more oil means 1860's population level support and technology is back. Ok, maybe 1880's levels...

Even if Farmer John can still grow it, there's no way to move it globally to where it needs to be. Nothing comparable to today's methods.

Not exactly the time travel many had hoped for, I suppose!

I'm glad I won't see the end of oil.

Lt

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8503
Credit: 4,195,600
RAC: 1,756
United Kingdom
Message 1142755 - Posted: 19 Aug 2011, 21:10:02 UTC - in response to Message 1142696.


There is no "something else". No one substance replaces oil completely.

Oil is used in the manufacture of thousands of products. And the manufacturing plants themselves will go idle when the oil runs out. ...


Indeed. Oil is far far too valuable to just burn it.


It's our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Message 1142796 - Posted: 19 Aug 2011, 22:06:04 UTC

Methane. Mucho.

Nat Gas. Lots.

Science. Figures out The Rest

NV and DB

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2500
Credit: 5,242,991
RAC: 8,119
United States
Message 1142882 - Posted: 20 Aug 2011, 0:51:52 UTC - in response to Message 1142836.

Amen!
____________

Profile Orgil
Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 05
Posts: 979
Credit: 103,388
RAC: 1
Mongolia
Message 1142946 - Posted: 20 Aug 2011, 3:41:28 UTC
Last modified: 20 Aug 2011, 3:58:30 UTC

In anti oil movement I guess Germans really leading others currently, their this years solar power production was 87% higher than last years. And some thousands of households over there sell their excess solar generated power to main state grid (average earning 3000-4000 euros?!).

I am really interested to hear more of this practice from German members?!
____________
Mandtugai!

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,287,856
RAC: 3,838
United States
Message 1142959 - Posted: 20 Aug 2011, 4:28:43 UTC - in response to Message 1142946.

Though with their knee-jerk reaction on the Japanese nuke plan, they may find that they need more oil than they thought they would over the coming decade.

Of course, they can always totally depend on Russian natural gas.... NOT.


In anti oil movement I guess Germans really leading others currently, their this years solar power production was 87% higher than last years. And some thousands of households over there sell their excess solar generated power to main state grid (average earning 3000-4000 euros?!).

I am really interested to hear more of this practice from German members?!


____________

Profile Orgil
Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 05
Posts: 979
Credit: 103,388
RAC: 1
Mongolia
Message 1142968 - Posted: 20 Aug 2011, 5:00:57 UTC - in response to Message 1142959.
Last modified: 20 Aug 2011, 5:03:45 UTC

Though with their knee-jerk reaction on the Japanese nuke plan, they may find that they need more oil than they thought they would over the coming decade.

Of course, they can always totally depend on Russian natural gas.... NOT.


In anti oil movement I guess Germans really leading others currently, their this years solar power production was 87% higher than last years. And some thousands of households over there sell their excess solar generated power to main state grid (average earning 3000-4000 euros?!).

I am really interested to hear more of this practice from German members?!



In USA too they just announced that in CA they are going to build largest solar farm. (meaning your point is soooo groundless) I mean it is more and more becoming reality that oil and coal dependancy is so 20th century "energy fashion".

Whatever current economic trends create short term doubts I'd say not that many decades later majority of public use energy possibly be come from renewables.
____________
Mandtugai!

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1630
Credit: 575,274
RAC: 334
United States
Message 1143009 - Posted: 20 Aug 2011, 9:28:00 UTC - in response to Message 1142173.


So unless we are willing to have even more starvation than already occurs we are locked on this path where ever it leads us. I just hope I am right in my gut feeling that there is massively more oil below the surface of this planet than the mainstream geological engineers are estimating and it will last until that first fusion powerplant makes more energy than it consumes and a vastly smaller human population is alive to enjoy the future.

All living things tend to grow and multiply. I'd like to think that the work by SETI and the space agencies NASA, RFSA, CNSA, ROSCOSMOS, ASAL, DNSC, DLR, ISA, ASI, ESA, CNES, PASA, CANSA, ISRO etc. etc. etc. will allow us the option of growing and multiplying outwards rather than shrivel and die inwards as the resources of this planet are depleted.

Have you ever seen what happens in a Petre dish when a bacteria colony is allowed uncontrolled growth. They end up choking on their own waste and die. We will reach critical mass long before we are capable of moving off planet to other worlds.

I point to the title of this thread 'Oil Versus something else?'. In the petre dish there is nothing else. Outside the petre dish we are human. We don't cull populations or watch it choke and die. We don't look at famine in the horn of Africa and watch it choke and die. Most of the civilized world will help where we can. We are past the ideas where, eg, in N.Korea many starve also. There is always something else. Renewable enery, nuclear energy, advances in science and agriculture. Humans will always find something else even if the oil runs out and they don't find a way to disperse onto the petre dishes in the universe.

My reference to the petre dish was merely a means to point out what happens when a population of living creatures grows in an uncontrolled invironment. I do not claim to have an answer that is fair, humane and most importantly workable. That is why I think that eventually we will exceed our ability to maintain the population explosion and natural forces will step in either through famine or plague or both. That is unless a war on a scale like never before seen erupts in a struggle to control dwindling stocks of food and fuel. It sounds grim and makes me look like a cold heartless pessimist. I can hope and wish that mankind will find a way to avoid the inevitable and I have even done my part by not producing any offspring but I fear it won't be enough. I'm just glad I won't be here when it hits us.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Profile Dr Imaginario
Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 11
Posts: 172
Credit: 22,735
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1143014 - Posted: 20 Aug 2011, 10:02:12 UTC

Oil is used not only to produce energy, but is also used to produce a lot of raw materials that industry needs.

Even the most advanced solar panels in the US use oil as part of the heating system.

Of course there is Natural Gas and Methane, and yes there are already viable sources to produce the energy and mobility people need.

But what about industry? how can we replace HPPE for example?

Governments don't think now much about oil as the price are stable. Also The biggest oil reserves are in the hands of gvernments worse than ours. Look at Hugo Chavez in Venezuela,

This guys will cause a lot of trouble in to the future and guess what EU and US will use military force to control this resources.

Energy will be a cause to create a war.

Profile Orgil
Send message
Joined: 3 Aug 05
Posts: 979
Credit: 103,388
RAC: 1
Mongolia
Message 1143039 - Posted: 20 Aug 2011, 11:46:34 UTC
Last modified: 20 Aug 2011, 11:48:48 UTC

The best estimate is oil might provide energy or raw resource for its designated industries at best in the next 30-40 years and for coal it is at best 50-80 years.

That means it is inevitable that in the next 20-30 years renewable energy source usage push will be too strong over any kind of national priorities.
____________
Mandtugai!

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1143067 - Posted: 20 Aug 2011, 14:58:28 UTC

The coal reserves already known are sufficient to power all our energy and manufacturing/product development needs worldwide for the next 200 years. A known fact.

As regards oil ... it has been fashionable for pundits to predict that there is 35 years of proven oil reserves since 1901. New discoveries and tertiary oil production techniques have kept this figure of 35 years going on for the last 110 years. It may continue, for all we know, but I do think we are over peak oil production now.

Gas seems to be the current lower CO2 option, so the development of a subterranean method of coal gasification in proven reserve seams would mean we could use coal in a cleanish way.

It looks like hot fusion for reliable power generation is likely to be at least 30 years in the future.
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1143172 - Posted: 20 Aug 2011, 20:13:09 UTC - in response to Message 1143067.

The coal reserves already known are sufficient to power all our energy and manufacturing/product development needs worldwide for the next 200 years. A known fact.

As regards oil ... it has been fashionable for pundits to predict that there is 35 years of proven oil reserves since 1901. New discoveries and tertiary oil production techniques have kept this figure of 35 years going on for the last 110 years. It may continue, for all we know, but I do think we are over peak oil production now.

Gas seems to be the current lower CO2 option, so the development of a subterranean method of coal gasification in proven reserve seams would mean we could use coal in a cleanish way.

It looks like hot fusion for reliable power generation is likely to be at least 30 years in the future.

no fossil fuel is a good option. remember methane is CH4 which makes CO2 and H20 when burned. though it requires less "refining", the current "fracking" techniques are questionjable at best. Claims that the toxic chemicals are minute and injected in a layer below the water table. Funny that there are numerous reports of the toxic chemicals being leaked into ground water because the industry doesn't fully understand that the ground has cracks. Cracks that will allow water and toxic chemicals to seep into the ground water
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Oil Versus something else?

Copyright © 2014 University of California