• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The end of oil is near....

blahblah99

Platinum Member
Oil on earth isn't going to last forever... once it's depleted, the world will be in chaos, particularly those nations who's infrastructure depends on petroleum.

If you put 10 bacteria cells in a petri dish full of nutrients, eventually they'll kill themselves due to their own wastes and lack of nutrients.

"If you're wondering why the mainstream media is not covering an issue of this magnitude 24/7, now you know. Once the seriousness of situation is generally acknowledged, a panic will spread on the markets and bring down the entire house of cards even if production hasn't actually peaked"

More here...

Too bad many people don't realize the seriousness of this situation other than the fact that gas prices are skyrocketing and that it's taking $50 to fill up their SUV/trucks/minivans.
 
Once again, we are not bacteria. Although I sometimes doubt our collective intelligence, unlike bacteria, we are able to take an active role in adapting to new situations. There is nothing to suggest to me that as a society we are just going to keep using oil until it's gone, then panic. A much more likely scenario is that once the problem starts becoming a real issue, like when we're closer to running out of oil, our research and development (and that of every technologically advanced country) will lean very much towards finding alternative fuels. Our economy depends quite a bit on oil, but that's because that's how it is designed. There is nothing that says our economy MUST be based on oil, and once it becomes obvious that it no longer can be, I think we'll make the switch to something else. It might be a little odd at first, but the whole idea of societal collapse ignores the numerous times in human history where we've adapted to new situations and circumstances without falling into panic.

Here is a perfect example. For a long time humans were mostly farmers and had a pretty low population density. Each farmer grew enough to support himself and his family, and farmers traded to get different kinds of crops. Land wasn't used very effectivly by modern standards because there was plenty of it to go around. As populations grew, this society became more and more difficult to maintain as farmable land became more difficult to find. Believe it or not, at that time a lot of people were starting to question if society would collapse because there wouldn't be enough food to go around. But what happened is that land started to be used a lot more effectivly, and this supported higher population densities. Increases in ability to trade meant that you could have cities like New York, where almost no one farmed, get food from places like Iowa, where much of the population farmed. Our old society would have resulted in collapse of course, but like humans have done for thousands of years, we adapted.

My only point is that every oil related bleak future painted by people relies on the idea that we will simply continue with what we are doing right up until we run over the cliff. Maybe we will, you never know, but I don't see a lot of historical evidence to suggest that this will be the case. And I see a lot of evidence to suggest it won't be.
 
This article in some places distorts the truth.

In the section "What About this Theory that Oil is Actually a Renewable Resource?" is misleading. No one, that I am aware of is making that claim.

The main theory is not that oil is a renewable resource, but that there's a lot more in reserve than originally thought to exist. You can think of the oil as rejuvenating temporarily, not really renewing. Oil is formed near the surface (on a global scale that is) by the decomposition of animals and plant matter, compressed, and changed into the hydrocarbons which make up oil and gas. See the link below for a detailed explanation as well as a diagram of how that works. The newer theory which explains why some previously dry oil fields have started to rejuvenate is that there are huge pockets that exist of gases and oil which were formed when the planet was first created or soon after which have yet to be tapped, but are much deeper than could be theorized by the plant/animal decay formation.

Edit:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Prepare.html

Some of the stuff on that page remindes me of the preparations that some were making for Y2k.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Once again, we are not bacteria. Although I sometimes doubt our collective intelligence, unlike bacteria, we are able to take an active role in adapting to new situations. There is nothing to suggest to me that as a society we are just going to keep using oil until it's gone, then panic. A much more likely scenario is that once the problem starts becoming a real issue, like when we're closer to running out of oil, our research and development (and that of every technologically advanced country) will lean very much towards finding alternative fuels. Our economy depends quite a bit on oil, but that's because that's how it is designed. There is nothing that says our economy MUST be based on oil, and once it becomes obvious that it no longer can be, I think we'll make the switch to something else. It might be a little odd at first, but the whole idea of societal collapse ignores the numerous times in human history where we've adapted to new situations and circumstances without falling into panic.

Here is a perfect example. For a long time humans were mostly farmers and had a pretty low population density. Each farmer grew enough to support himself and his family, and farmers traded to get different kinds of crops. Land wasn't used very effectivly by modern standards because there was plenty of it to go around. As populations grew, this society became more and more difficult to maintain as farmable land became more difficult to find. Believe it or not, at that time a lot of people were starting to question if society would collapse because there wouldn't be enough food to go around. But what happened is that land started to be used a lot more effectivly, and this supported higher population densities. Increases in ability to trade meant that you could have cities like New York, where almost no one farmed, get food from places like Iowa, where much of the population farmed. Our old society would have resulted in collapse of course, but like humans have done for thousands of years, we adapted.

My only point is that every oil related bleak future painted by people relies on the idea that we will simply continue with what we are doing right up until we run over the cliff. Maybe we will, you never know, but I don't see a lot of historical evidence to suggest that this will be the case. And I see a lot of evidence to suggest it won't be.


Your whole logic with the farms & lands was made under the assumption that there were resources available to adapt - ie, more land available, oil available, metals available, etc etc. And the majority of the time in the past where there was adaptation, there was conflict.

The oil situation is no different, in that once we ran out of oil, we will need to adapt new ways of finding energy. The only ways that currently exists are solar and wind, which doesn't produce anywhere near the required energy needed to sustain life for the current population. Even then, it takes oil to create the machines that will harvest solar and wind energy.


So if an economy is dependent on oil, what happens when that oil becomes scarce, causing the price of oil to become extremely expensive? Inflation occurs. And we've seen what the result is when that happens....

 
Originally posted by: blahblah99
Your whole logic with the farms & lands was made under the assumption that there were resources available to adapt ...

No he did not say that. He said that they started using the land more efficiently. (i.e. Being able to grow more food on the same plot of land. )

Originally posted by: blahblah99
The oil situation is no different, in that once we ran out of oil, we will need to adapt new ways of finding energy. The only ways that currently exists are solar and wind, which doesn't produce anywhere near the required energy needed to sustain life for the current population. Even then, it takes oil to create the machines that will harvest solar and wind energy.

You are attacking the weakest of possible new energy sources. You are also leaving out Biomass, Fusion (if it's even possible), or nuclear power.
 
Originally posted by: blahblah99
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Once again, we are not bacteria. Although I sometimes doubt our collective intelligence, unlike bacteria, we are able to take an active role in adapting to new situations. There is nothing to suggest to me that as a society we are just going to keep using oil until it's gone, then panic. A much more likely scenario is that once the problem starts becoming a real issue, like when we're closer to running out of oil, our research and development (and that of every technologically advanced country) will lean very much towards finding alternative fuels. Our economy depends quite a bit on oil, but that's because that's how it is designed. There is nothing that says our economy MUST be based on oil, and once it becomes obvious that it no longer can be, I think we'll make the switch to something else. It might be a little odd at first, but the whole idea of societal collapse ignores the numerous times in human history where we've adapted to new situations and circumstances without falling into panic.

Here is a perfect example. For a long time humans were mostly farmers and had a pretty low population density. Each farmer grew enough to support himself and his family, and farmers traded to get different kinds of crops. Land wasn't used very effectivly by modern standards because there was plenty of it to go around. As populations grew, this society became more and more difficult to maintain as farmable land became more difficult to find. Believe it or not, at that time a lot of people were starting to question if society would collapse because there wouldn't be enough food to go around. But what happened is that land started to be used a lot more effectivly, and this supported higher population densities. Increases in ability to trade meant that you could have cities like New York, where almost no one farmed, get food from places like Iowa, where much of the population farmed. Our old society would have resulted in collapse of course, but like humans have done for thousands of years, we adapted.

My only point is that every oil related bleak future painted by people relies on the idea that we will simply continue with what we are doing right up until we run over the cliff. Maybe we will, you never know, but I don't see a lot of historical evidence to suggest that this will be the case. And I see a lot of evidence to suggest it won't be.


Your whole logic with the farms & lands was made under the assumption that there were resources available to adapt - ie, more land available, oil available, metals available, etc etc. And the majority of the time in the past where there was adaptation, there was conflict.

The oil situation is no different, in that once we ran out of oil, we will need to adapt new ways of finding energy. The only ways that currently exists are solar and wind, which doesn't produce anywhere near the required energy needed to sustain life for the current population. Even then, it takes oil to create the machines that will harvest solar and wind energy.


So if an economy is dependent on oil, what happens when that oil becomes scarce, causing the price of oil to become extremely expensive? Inflation occurs. And we've seen what the result is when that happens....

But I'm saying solar and wind won't be the only alternatives (well, they aren't the only ones now either, but let's ignore that). Any significant change like this requires some new technology. My farming situation required some totally new things. Moving food with wagons (the previous method) didn't scale very well, moving the amount of food necessary to sustain a big city wouldn't be possible. But trains came along for this task, and later trucking became a big method of transport. Neither of those things were obvious when the problem first came about, they developed as a result.

My logic does rest on the idea that there is something else to adapt, but not just resources. Different ways to use resources is a big part of how the whole thing works. You might be right about solar and wind, so maybe we'll use more nuclear power, or maybe we'll develop nuclear fusion power in a way that works. For cars, fuel cells are being developed now, and who knows what's around the corner. We can't solve new problems with old solutions, that's why new solutions are being worked on even as we speak.

I'm not saying the transition won't have problems, people always resist change. But I'm saying it will happen, and the world won't fall apart when it does.
 
And it only takes oil because it is currently the most efficient source of energy now, but it will become less efficient when the supply lessens due to the inevitable increase in price.

One criticism of Rainsford's viewpoint is that Eurasia's constantly expansive need for land has been subsidized by the discovery and exploitation of the thinly populated yet largely cultvated Americas. History is may be a bad judge since history has had the bonus of 1/3 of a planet given to its hand in the last 500 years. And it has only been fully exploited in the past 200.

200 years is a bad precedent on which to judge the survival of a species that has held its expansionist ecological niche for around 10 000 years. And there have been plenty of historical examples of what happens to agricultural societies when they have run out of room to grow: Sumer, Indus valley, the Maya, etc.

We really are watching a race between the technological efficiencies afforded us by progress, against the population growth which is a neccessary corrollory of that progress. The growth will slow eventually. The question is, will the thechnological growth happen fast enough to sustain it? Will it do so fast enough to afford us the global political stability needed to avoid the self-inflicted cataclysm which has recently been within our power?

 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
And it only takes oil because it is currently the most efficient source of energy now, but it will become less efficient when the supply lessens due to the inevitable increase in price.

One criticism of Rainsford's viewpoint is that Eurasia's constantly expansive need for land has been subsidized by the discovery and exploitation of the thinly populated yet largely cultvated Americas. History is may be a bad judge since history has had the bonus of 1/3 of a planet given to its hand in the last 500 years. And it has only been fully exploited in the past 200.

200 years is a bad precedent on which to judge the survival of a species that has held its expansionist ecological niche for around 10 000 years.

You have a good point there, I hadn't thought of that. I still think the basic idea that human beings are able to adapt pretty well is a good one.
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
And it only takes oil because it is currently the most efficient source of energy now, but it will become less efficient when the supply lessens due to the inevitable increase in price.

One criticism of Rainsford's viewpoint is that Eurasia's constantly expansive need for land has been subsidized by the discovery and exploitation of the thinly populated yet largely cultvated Americas. History is may be a bad judge since history has had the bonus of 1/3 of a planet given to its hand in the last 500 years. And it has only been fully exploited in the past 200.

200 years is a bad precedent on which to judge the survival of a species that has held its expansionist ecological niche for around 10 000 years. And there have been plenty of historical examples of what happens to agricultural societies when they have run out of room to grow: Sumer, Indus valley, the Maya, etc.

We really are watching a race between the technological efficiencies afforded us by progress, against the population growth which is a neccessary corrollory of that progress. The growth will slow eventually. The question is, will the thechnological growth happen fast enough to sustain it? Will it do so fast enough to afford us the global political stability needed to avoid the self-inflicted cataclysm which has recently been within our power?
It's possible that the rate of population growth and the rate of technology to support that growth are interrelated. The people who are being born are the people who will develop the future technology: the more of them you have, the more technology they can develop. I doubt it's a linear fit or anything so fancy, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some trend there.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard


It's possible that the rate of population growth and the rate of technology to support that growth are interrelated. The people who are being born are the people who will develop the future technology: the more of them you have, the more technology they can develop. I doubt it's a linear fit or anything so fancy, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some trend there.

It could be that's the case. I ask you to look at where the population is growing, and where it is shrinking. It is growing where technical and ecducational capital is lowest. In fact, the current approximations that predict a slowing of population growth hinge on the assumption on a certain amount of educational and technical development convergence between the rich and the poor societies.

We are breeding those who cannot contribute, and those who can, are not breeding.
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
It could be that's the case. I ask you to look at where the population is growing, and where it is shrinking. It is growing where technical and ecducational capital is lowest. In fact, the current approximations that predict a slowing of population growth hinge on the assumption on a certain amount of educational and technical development convergence between the rich and the poor societies.

We are breeding those who cannot contribute, and those who can, are not breeding.
The greatest contributions often come from the most unlikely sources. Besides, the technological growth that we are currently undergoing is facilitated by all those who 'cannot contribute' in India and China. The farmer sends his kid to school where he learns how to be a programmer. This allows someone here to be something 'more important' in the development of technology rather than simply writing code all day. I admit it's not an exact science, but I don't see the current population booms hurting us any time soon. If anything, I think our own decrease in population growth will hurt us in the long run, as our model for society is predicated on a certain exponential population growth. We are artificially tampering with the birth rate, thereby skewing the model. This is what causes major problems in programs like social security, or at least contributes to it significantly. The not-so-thrifty government doesn't help its cause, either.
 
Yes, the examples of China and India are instructive. But those are also the two countries where the birth rate is dropping at the fastest pace.

As for our own, we here in North America have the advantage of a dynamic, changing culture as a fundamental base. This allows us to integrate immigrants more easily. The Europeans have our low native birth rates, yet a much more static culture. The fact that we are positioned to equally import people from east asia, latin america and Africa/the middle east also means that we spread our new cultural influences among many different souces, as opposed to being overly dependent on one source (N. Africa and the Middle East in the case of the Europeans.)

The pace of innovation is faster today than it has ever been before. This is what allows us the possibility of having Rainsford's optimistic view being plausible. It is by no means guraranteed, however.

That's why I call it a race. Place your bets. Well, we've all bet on the same horse, haven't we? Let's hope it at least places.
 
Actually, we'll just put more emphasis on exploiting natural gas after oil is depleted.

Hopefully there'll be enough time for us to develop efficient technologies which utilise
many types of sources before natural gas runs out.

Current utilisations of solar, wind, and tide energy are still quite inefficient.

Maybe we'll concentrate on using hydrogen (converted from water) -- many safety aspects has to be considered in using it though.

 
The actual end of oil is certainly not near, and in fact oil and natural gas are to some degree now renewable resources with the technology of Thermal Depolymerization.
DISCOVER Vol. 24 No. 5 (May 2003)
Table of Contents

Anything into Oil
Technological savvy could turn 600 million tons of turkey guts and other
waste into 4 billion barrels of light Texas crude each year
By Brad Lemley
Photography by Tony Law

Gory refuse, from a Butterball Turkey plant in Carthage, Missouri, will no
longer go to waste. Each day 200 tons of turkey offal will be carted to the
first industrial-scale thermal depolymerization plant, recently completed in
an adjacent lot, and be transformed into various useful products, including
600 barrels of light oil.


In an industrial park in Philadelphia sits a new machine that can change
almost anything into oil.
Really.

"This is a solution to three of the biggest problems facing mankind,"
says Brian Appel, chairman and CEO of Changing World Technologies, the
company that built this pilot plant and has just completed its first
industrial-size installation in Missouri. "This process can deal with the
world's waste. It can supplement our dwindling supplies of oil. And it can
slow down global warming."

Pardon me, says a reporter, shivering in the frigid dawn, but that
sounds too good to be true.

"Everybody says that," says Appel. He is a tall, affable entrepreneur
who has assembled a team of scientists, former government leaders, and
deep-pocketed investors to develop and sell what he calls the thermal
depolymerization process, or TDP. The process is designed to handle almost
any waste product imaginable, including turkey offal, tires, plastic
bottles, harbor-dredged muck, old computers, municipal garbage, cornstalks,
paper-pulp effluent, infectious medical waste, oil-refinery residues, even
biological weapons such as anthrax spores. According to Appel, waste goes in
one end and comes out the other as three products, all valuable and
environmentally benign: high-quality oil, clean-burning gas, and purified
minerals that can be used as fuels, fertilizers, or specialty chemicals for
manufacturing.

Unlike other solid-to-liquid-fuel processes such as cornstarch into
ethanol, this one will accept almost any carbon-based feedstock. If a
175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38
pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123
pounds of sterilized water. While no one plans to put people into a thermal
depolymerization machine, an intimate human creation could become a prime
feedstock. "There is no reason why we can't turn sewage, including human
excrement, into a glorious oil," says engineer Terry Adams, a project
consultant. So the city of Philadelphia is in discussion with Changing World
Technologies to begin doing exactly that.

"The potential is unbelievable," says Michael Roberts, a senior chemical
engineer for the Gas Technology Institute, an energy research group. "You're
not only cleaning up waste; you're talking about distributed generation of
oil all over the world."

"This is not an incremental change. This is a big, new step," agrees Alf
Andreassen, a venture capitalist with the Paladin Capital Group and a former
Bell Laboratories director.

The offal-derived oil, is chemically almost identical to a number two fuel
oil used to heat homes

Andreassen and others anticipate that a large chunk of the world's
agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste may someday go into thermal
depolymerization machines scattered all over the globe. If the process works
as well as its creators claim, not only would most toxic waste problems
become history, so would imported oil. Just converting all the U.S.
agricultural waste into oil and gas would yield the energy equivalent of 4
billion barrels of oil annually. In 2001 the United States imported 4.2
billion barrels of oil. Referring to U.S. dependence on oil from the
volatile Middle East, R. James Woolsey, former CIA director and an adviser
to Changing World Technologies, says, "This technology offers a beginning of
a way away from this."

But first things first. Today, here at the plant at Philadelphia's Naval
Business Center, the experimental feedstock is turkey processing-plant
waste: feathers, bones, skin, blood, fat, guts. A forklift dumps 1,400
pounds of the nasty stuff into the machine's first stage, a 350-horsepower
grinder that masticates it into gray brown slurry. From there it flows into
a series of tanks and pipes, which hum and hiss as they heat, digest, and
break down the mixture. Two hours later, a white-jacketed technician turns a
spigot. Out pours a honey-colored fluid, steaming a bit in the cold
warehouse as it fills a glass beaker.
It really is a lovely oil.

"The longest carbon chains are C-18 or so," says Appel, admiring the
liquid. "That's a very light oil. It is essentially the same as a mix of
half fuel oil, half gasoline."...

Thermal depolymerization, Appel says, has proved to be 85 percent energy
efficient for complex feedstocks, such as turkey offal: "That means for
every 100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process." He
contends the efficiency is even better for relatively dry raw materials,
such as plastics.

So how does it work? In the cold Philadelphia warehouse, Appel waves a
long arm at the apparatus, which looks surprisingly low tech: a tangle of
pressure vessels, pipes, valves, and heat exchangers terminating in storage
tanks. It resembles the oil refineries that stretch to the horizon on either
side of the New Jersey Turnpike, and in part, that's exactly what it is.
Appel strides to a silver gray pressure tank that is 20 feet long, three
feet wide, heavily insulated, and wrapped with electric heating coils. He
raps on its side. "The chief difference in our process is that we make water
a friend rather than an enemy," he says. "The other processes all tried to
drive out water. We drive it in, inside this tank, with heat and pressure.
We super-hydrate the material." Thus temperatures and pressures need only be

modest, because water helps to convey heat into the feedstock. "We're
talking about temperatures of 500 degrees Fahrenheit and pressures of about
600 pounds for most organic material?not at all extreme or energy intensive.
And the cooking times are pretty short, usually about 15 minutes."
Once the organic soup is heated and partially depolymerized in the
reactor vessel, phase two begins. "We quickly drop the slurry to a lower
pressure," says Appel, pointing at a branching series of pipes. The rapid
depressurization releases about 90 percent of the slurry's free water.
Dehydration via depressurization is far cheaper in terms of energy consumed
than is heating and boiling off the water, particularly because no heat is
wasted. "We send the flashed-off water back up there," Appel says, pointing
to a pipe that leads to the beginning of the process, "to heat the incoming
stream."

At this stage, the minerals?in turkey waste, they come mostly from
bones?settle out and are shunted to storage tanks. Rich in calcium and
magnesium, the dried brown powder "is a perfect balanced fertilizer," Appel
says.

The remaining concentrated organic soup gushes into a second-stage
reactor similar to the coke ovens used to refine oil into gasoline. "This
technology is as old as the hills," says Appel, grinning broadly. The
reactor heats the soup to about 900 degrees Fahrenheit to further break
apart long molecular chains. Next, in vertical distillation columns, hot
vapor flows up, condenses, and flows out from different levels: gases from
the top of the column, light oils from the upper middle, heavier oils from
the middle, water from the lower middle, and powdered carbon?used to
manufacture tires, filters, and printer toners?from the bottom. "Gas is
expensive to transport, so we use it on-site in the plant to heat the
process," Appel says. The oil, minerals, and carbon are sold to the highest
bidders...

This Philadelphia pilot plant can handle only seven tons of waste a day,
but 1,054 miles to the west, in Carthage, Missouri, about 100 yards from one
of ConAgra Foods' massive Butterball Turkey plants, sits the company's first
commercial-scale thermal depolymerization plant. The $20 million facility,
scheduled to go online any day, is expected to digest more than 200 tons of
turkey-processing waste every 24 hours...

And it will be profitable, promises Appel. "We've done so much testing
in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," he says. "This is our first-out
plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five
years, we'll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and
production company. And it will get cheaper from there."
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=829&whichpage=1

The Carthage Missouri plant has now been functioning for awhile, and plans are moving forward to build more plants. It would still be better over the longterm for us to develop nuclear fusion, but this is a nice intern measure.
 
What people don't realise is that other things like fusion, biomass, solar power, wind power etc won't make us plastics.
We use carbon chain products for a lot of things.
Organic materials are based on polymers, which are produced by the conversion of natural products or by syththesis from primary chemicals coming from oil, natural gas or coal.
For making plastics.
So things that can make oil and gas are useles even if we find other sources of power/fuel.
 
All the farmers who have been struggling for years will soon be laughing all the way to the bank. Once ethanol becomes more economically feasible and the rpice of a gallon of ethanol matches a price of gallon of gas, you will see mroe porduction plants built.

The only thing I wonder about is how this will affect the price of all my great grand kids toys. If gasoline production drops off, cheap plastic will be a thing of the past. Oh well there will be many plastics still sitting in land fills.
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
What people don't realise is that other things like fusion, biomass, solar power, wind power etc won't make us plastics.
We use carbon chain products for a lot of things.
Organic materials are based on polymers, which are produced by the conversion of natural products or by syththesis from primary chemicals coming from oil, natural gas or coal.
For making plastics.
So things that can make oil and gas are useles even if we find other sources of power/fuel.


Scientitst will have to substitute other organic compounds/matters in place of oil

One simple example, cars in Brazil's been running on ethanol mixture for several years, and

Originally, turpentine was made from the leaves of some conifers.
 
I'm so glad that our government is in the forefront of alternate fuel research.... err wait. Nevermind. We ain't doing squat.
 
Originally posted by: Promethply
Originally posted by: Lonyo
What people don't realise is that other things like fusion, biomass, solar power, wind power etc won't make us plastics.
We use carbon chain products for a lot of things.
Organic materials are based on polymers, which are produced by the conversion of natural products or by syththesis from primary chemicals coming from oil, natural gas or coal.
For making plastics.
So things that can make oil and gas are useles even if we find other sources of power/fuel.


Scientitst will have to substitute other organic compounds/matters in place of oil

One simple example, cars in Brazil's been running on ethanol mixture for several years, and

Originally, turpentine was made from the leaves of some conifers.
There's also methane hydrate, of which it is estimated there is somewhere from 2X to 5X the amount available in comparison to all the oil that exists, recoverable or not, just sitting on the sea floor. Up till now there's been little motivation to mine it since developing that tech will be costly. That will change though.

 
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
This article in some places distorts the truth.

In the section "What About this Theory that Oil is Actually a Renewable Resource?" is misleading. No one, that I am aware of is making that claim.

The main theory is not that oil is a renewable resource, but that there's a lot more in reserve than originally thought to exist. You can think of the oil as rejuvenating temporarily, not really renewing. Oil is formed near the surface (on a global scale that is) by the decomposition of animals and plant matter, compressed, and changed into the hydrocarbons which make up oil and gas. See the link below for a detailed explanation as well as a diagram of how that works. The newer theory which explains why some previously dry oil fields have started to rejuvenate is that there are huge pockets that exist of gases and oil which were formed when the planet was first created or soon after which have yet to be tapped, but are much deeper than could be theorized by the plant/animal decay formation.

Edit:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Prepare.html

Some of the stuff on that page remindes me of the preparations that some were making for Y2k.

I didnt read the article but I have read papers where a new theory is born which concludes Oil is actually a process of chemical combining below the surface of the earth. In theory it is reneweable as these chemicals move to the surface. As the oil moves into the crust is will mix with anything within the crust which often contains fossils. The claim is even with a half billion years of decomposing it doesnt explain the shear mass of oil we find on this planet. And apparently in some of the oil fields that dried up and came back to life. The oil found is very new in terms of how old it is.

It is an interesting idea but I have no idea if it holds much water in the real world.



 
Originally posted by: Stunt
Here are bush's promises on oil/energy
anyone willing to go through and point out the parts he has implemented in his 4+ years?
i'm not 100% sure

Not much, if any of that. Though he has been trying to get ANWR opened up against rather stiff opposition.

I personally think that elected officials have rather limited power to influence the energy market to a significant degree, for the better that is. One thing they should do is stop renewing licenses for increasingly decrepit nuclear plants that should be replaced. Hopefully that would spur the energy sector to build more modern/higher capacity nuclear plants.
 
Back
Top