/sci/ - Science & Math

Because we stopped being civilized ages ago.

Peak oil is not the end of civilization

Because if it were true, we'd still have coal.

>>1350342

>implying that the Large Hardon Collider won't create a super massive black hole and swallow Earth before 2080.

>>1350358
Not for long we wouldn't

Because nuclear power.

Some of us are here far more often than we should be, and I think we deserve a little consideration from the trolls. Mix it up a little. Quit reposting the same threads. FRESH TROLLS PLEASE

>>1350374
Coal could last us another 200+ years.

Who gives a shit?

>>1350357
This

Peak oil just means oil starts getting more expensive.

So we switch over to solar and electric vehicles. OH NOOO THE WORLD IS DOOOMEED

it's not the end. it may be the end of a century long boom but not the end of humanity or even modern civilization. biofuels and solar energies/nuclear energy can feed the society alright, just at a much higher cost.

>>1350379
If that's true it would only hold at 0% growth, in a time when Asia's consumption is exploding.
That and our institutions demand constant growth, 0 growth is enough to spell long-term collapse as I see it.

Nuclear power exists but it's what, 8 times more expensive than fossil fuels? Much more right? That and if we were to switch over to Nuclear completely we could easily burn through all our U-235 in a couple decades at most.

>>1350400
> implying solar power can generate enough electricity to power anything other than a coffee percolator

perhaps when the oil runs out; civilization will actually begin.

>>1350413
You're wrong on pretty much every point.

>>1350376
Every item in your house was manufactured using crude oil derivatives. Try to think of just one in thing in your house that wasn't. Energy production is not the biggest concern.

>>1350403
Biofuels can't feed the society, just the opposite. If there were only a billion people on the planet then MAYBE.

Solar is possible but I don't have much hope that the it will be feasible when we need it, if ever.

At any rate, I only see a complete switch to inferior renewable energy sources after everything's already hit the fan and populations have dropped. Nothing beats fossil fuels in calories per pound.

>>1350426
Nuclear does.

>>1350413
>Nuclear power exists but it's what, 8 times more expensive than fossil fuels? Much more right?

Wrong, pic related.

We're only reliant on oil for as long as it exists.

>>1350444
The problem with nuclear is that you still need to mine, transport and refine the uranium. The first two are entirely dependant upon fossil fuels, and the last one requires huge industrial proccesses and machines which depend upon fossil fuels for their construction and operation

I just can't think of any other civilization in history dependent on a crucial resource that once depleted was able to just switch over into a massive technology revolution without at least some cataclysmic collapses in between.

As a chemist, I'm more alarmed about the so-called refinement of petroleum into base diesel. So many long polymer chains being used just to generate heat and force, when they could be used for bloody amazing plastics...

It's like having the finest rosewood, but instead of making Stradivarius violins, you're using it for firewood.

>>1350505
Plus the Uranium (235) is a very finite resource.

>>1350413
>That and if we were to switch over to Nuclear completely we could easily burn through all our U-235 in a couple decades at most.
There is enough uranium to provide all the world’s energy indefinitely.
http://channellingthestrongforce.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-nuclear-power-sustainable.html

http://yottawattsthorium.blogspot.com/

The problem isn't power generation, it's food production.
10 calories or thereabouts of fossil fuel energy go into producing every calorie of food we eat in the US, not including energy expended in transportation, processing, packing and storing.
Without oil, most people on earth will starve to death within a few months

Isnt it funny how not long ago Hippies and liberals were terrified of nuclear waste destroying the world, but now they dont give a crap, and in fact SUPPORT nuclear power as beeing "Greener?"

I find it funny because the truth is, it IS greener. Nuclear Waste isnt going to cause ecological distaster unless you replace the ocean with it or something. All it does is make a few humans die slightly sooner. Look at chernobyl. It's fucking THRIVING with wildlife and nature and shit. Addmittedly, infant mortality rates are high-ish, and lifespans are low-ish, but I doubt the animals mind much.

>>1350560
Chernobyl is worst case scenario.