/sci/ - Science & Math

Documentaries:

Other people looking at data and telling you what they think it means in a moving picture format, while you sit back and eat up the shit cause your too ADD to read through a book or journals.

>>3457682
people with ADD don't watch documentaries. They play angry birds.

have you looked at graphs of the increasing population and its oil demand..... its comon sense.....oil wont be able to support life on earth as we know it.....millions will die.....this is a fact.....

Seen em, agree with OP

>>3457700

I figured ADD was as civil as I was going to get. CIVILITY my good sir is what keeps us from turning into the /b/arbarians!

>>3457764
So uh, misdefining a category of people is what passes as civility?

>>3457774

Yes. Welcome to 4chan.

>>3457708
Peak oil will never matter, and this is why:
As the cost of oil goes up, oil alternatives will become more economical.

When the cost of gasoline and diesel beings to reliably exceed the cost of biogasoline and biodiesel, the market will begin to naturally shift to the lower cost product, particularly if it's a direct replacement - and Biogas and Biodiesel, both being potentially made out of little more than literal shit, will never peak.
Then, throw in curveballs that mess with our shit like the gradual adoption of Flexfuel vehicles that can take E85, LNG and LPG conversions of gasoline vehicles, the rise of the Electric vehicle for short journeys, as well as far-out shit like Hydrogen fuel cell-powered electrics reaching parity with gasoline in cost/mileage, and peak oil simply means nothing.

The market is already showing a pronounced trend towards alternative fuels, and we already have direct equivalent replacements which ensure that we will never run out of gasoline even if we drag our feet for eons trying to roll out hydrogen/LNG/LPG/Electric infrastructure.

People who believe that peak oil will destroy life as we know it, probably also believe that turkeys will drown in the rain.

>>3457830
Orders of magnitude. Resources are non fungible, and energy is required as prices rise. Whatever you want to call economic friction, there can easily be a point at which peak oil causes a crisis.

Just saying 'oh, it'll never peak...' isn't a rational answer.

>>3457830
This board frowns upon sound economics. Anytime you lay down a thoughtful argument people will just say "resources are limited, therefore we will run out and if you don't agree with me you're delusional."

I'd just stick with a copy-pasta response and move on.

>>3457874
>sound
>economics
>Science
Pick 1

>>3457663
>unconventional oil contributing very little in the future
>reserves are three times that of conventional oil

>>3457859
It will peak, it will cause economic friction as it does so, and it won't really matter, because that economic friction will be gradual enough that it'll spur innovation and changes in the market rather than wreck the world economy.

Hydrogen fuel cell-electrics already match gasoline powered cars in most ways, except for the initial cost (Honda FCXs cost something like $120k, iirc). Of course, here, we have yet to solve the problem of how to get the initial cost down to something relatively reasonable and affordable, and developing hydrogen infrastructure, nevermind the massive amount of energy involved in producing hydrogen that our strained electric infrastructure would have difficulty supplying. I wouldn't put my bets on this one, but it's a really neat technology.
Battery-Electric vehicles are already viable forms of transport for great numbers of people, and the technology is rapidly maturing, courtesy of Hybrids and advances in batteries. Problem? It's not readily compatible with our lifestyles. You won't see electric semis hauling crap around, and forget driving further than your vehicle's range without at least a 3 hour stop to recharge.
LNG and LPG power is already competitive with gasoline in every metric and is a simple conversion for gasoline powered cars. The only problems are a poorly developed infrastructure outside of major cities and a lack of consumer knowledge.

>>3457961
Ethanol is a fully viable alternative for damn near everyone driving a car <5 years old. What's keeping it from taking off? It's not cheaper than gasoline yet, so nobody gives a fuck. Solution? Wait for gas to get more expensive, or subsidize farmers growing crops to produce ethanol (PS: Corn sucks for this and just about every else other than HFCS, if anybody throws statistics at you about how much corn you'd need to power the US, tell them to fuck off and find out how much sugar or algae we'd need instead.)
Thermal Depolymerization is a -very- promising alternative. It piggy backs onto all of our already existing petrochemical infrastructure and produces a direct replacement for gasoline - biogasoline. All that's required is to build some plants to do it in and start shoving organic waste into them. Again, it hasn't taken off because it's not cheaper than gasoline yet. Solution - Subsidies, or wait for gasoline to get more expensive.

So on and so forth. Don't get me wrong, rising energy costs will put the hurt on economies world-wide, but we have alternatives already which are mature enough, cost-effective enough, and fast enough to ramp up that we won't go into a second dark age any time soon.

>>3457961
This of course ignores the whole global warming and complex systems of interaction from diverting energy that goes to other processes.

No matter how you slice it, you can't just wave a wand and say there'll be no peak energy demand/supply problem.

One way or another, shits got to regulate, and humans have demonstrated consistently, that they do not take change smoothly.

>us has enough natural gas to supply global transportation needs for 200 years

$1000 feral tax credit for home cng station expires at the end of this year, already have my order placed.

$2500 utah credit to convert my car is still valid too.

I Can't find the graph.

But the insane increase in population correlates with the discovery and processing of oil.

If we can't replace oil the population will go down with it.

>>3457969

> subsidizing the growing of "fuel" on land that could grow food

georgecastanza.tiff.png.jpg

>>3458038
ever heard of images.google?

>>3457987
In regards to energy redistribution,
Take Thermal Depolymerization as an example for a moment.

Are we diverting energy? Yes, it takes a good amount of energy to heat the fuck out of something under high pressure, but we have a net gain in usable energy, since everything that goes into it is an organic waste product that'd just go off somewhere and decay for a few months otherwise, providing us with little to no usable energy. Farmers will suffer a little with higher fertilizer costs, but municipalities will find it beneficial as garbage and sewage suddenly changes from waste product to feedstock. It's an extremely multi-faceted thing to consider, but overall, this would be a net gain in energy, and while it would harm some sectors, it'd benefit others as well. The end result to a consumer would be that he pays $X more for food, but ~$X less in taxes, and the cost of energy for him will be no greater than it was when gasoline ceased to be economical.

The problem is more that the days of cheap energy are over than it is that alternative energy will throw energy/food/whatever distribution out of whack.

Global warming is a totally seperate issue - but it's a good time to mention that alternative energy, when it's not carbon-neutral, is almost always significantly less carbon-intensive than equivalent petroleum products.

>>3458038

We have enough coal to last thousands of years. We can liquefy coal.
/thread

>>3458055
No one has informed him that both bat guano and arable land are also being severely reduced atm.

Next he'll tell us he wants to grow algae in the desert but won't tell us where he'll get the water from.

>pic related, it is a plateau

>>3458056
Yes I have, but i was referring to one i had saved that I couldn't find.

Thank you for posting one though.

>>3458055
Spoilers: A lack of affordable energy will be hundreds of times deadlier to humanity at large than a lack of affordable food.

Besides, who ever said that it needs to be grown in lieu of food crops? There have been pilot projects growing algae in deserts in closed systems that use water very efficiently. Some of these have even gone so far as to bubble power plant exhaust gases through the algae, to not only reduce emissions, but also increase yields.

Think outside of the box, you dumb nigger.

>>3458073
>Next he'll tell us he wants to grow algae in the desert but won't tell us where he'll get the water from.

Pipelines.
You know, we pipe crude oil thousands of miles from one place to another. If it's cost-effective, nothing's stopping us from doing the same with water.

Point is: everything has a point where it becomes cost-effective and viable.
The market naturally trends for the cheapest thing it can get that does what it wants. If the costs involved in bringing water to the desert to make algae biodiesel are lower than what the market will pay for it, you have a business and everyone's happy.

>>3458124
Where will you get the energy to move all this water? And uh..you do realize people need water right?

Hrm. I'm sure you have the entire resource allocation system totally planned out, and you've got rid of all those pesky chaotic subsystem interactions.

You're definitely gonna win a nobel prize for ignorance.

>>3458133
>implying there isn't water unfit for human consumption
>implying aqueducts never existed

>>3458070
we have enough coal to last for a couple centuries at current consumption.

we'll need to at least triple consumption if we want to replace gasoline and oil with coal and have enough to go around.

that's just assuming our population doesn't grow at all, and we keep on at current rates.

when you look at it like that we have enough coal to last 50-75 years, mostly in china.

>>3458133
>Implying that water is a finite resource

>>3458092
>>3458124

Spoiler: A lack of affordable freshwater will be be hundreds of times deadlier than a food or energy shortage.

Don't tell me that you could use sea water because that will make the whole pipeline operations even more expensive.

Not to mention those who happen to live in what ever watersheds you plan on hauling this crap from aren't going to be to happy about you taking their water.

>>3457899
Actually true economics(austrian economics) is to the far right of all of those people.

Pure logic bro.

>>3458160
Cathodic protection, motherfucker, have you heard of it?

Seawater, by the way, would be superb. Already full of all sorts of shit that Algae just loves to consume, and nobody would bitch at you for using up all their drinking water.

>>3458158
eh? I'm not sure you know how heavy water is, or some how, you've figured out how to move it from one place to another.

Reemember, basic science requires you to review references before you say crap you don't understand. In this case, you would have realized the reference is for growing algae in a desert.

Again, you can have all the fucking water you want, but if it ain't falling where you want it, you have to expend energy to get it where it can be used.

Sure you can imagine distributed energy systems, but again, thats a complete revamp of our current management strategies.

But do keep commenting on things you arn't reading.

>>3458160
If they're in texas or Jerusalem, it'd be a declaration of what.

I get they're trying to make an end round the reliance upon energy, but they completely ignore that they're relying on global economic to some how smoothly translate very rough patches of resource recovery.

>Hint: resources are sporadic, as they all rely on some arbitrary entropy in the system we call earth.

>>3458070
>We have enough coal to last thousands of years.
Not. Even. Close.

Coal accounts for 25% of global energy use, and at CURRENT USAGE RATES we have about 150yrs of reserves, so about 60yrs of coal if we replaced all other fossil fuels with coal, and usage didn't increase (energy consumption increase 5% in 2010).

>>3458155
>mostly in china.
wat

The US has 200% of the coal reserves of China.

>>3458211
And of course, if you factor in shortages in nitrogen, water, food and other necessities, that energy will be quickly squandered.

It's really hard to discuss energy issues without understanding the complex nature of industrialization.

>pic to make it all go away

>>3458224
so china would have us believe.

>>3457663
Molten salt thorium reactor.

/thread

>>3458235
>toxic radioactive water

/civilization

>>3458241
You need to do some research. Molten salt thorium reactors would not use water for coolant. There is no radioactive water.

>>3458187
>Missing the point

Market demands it = Market will make it.
I can't wrap my head around all the logistical issues around growing algae in a desert, then turning it into fuels, and I don't intend to go into any detail past basic proofs of concept.
The point is that it's technically feasible, and if it's a cost-effective way (including cost considerations such as moving around water and whatever else you can find to nitpick) to produce a fuel which there is demand for, the market will do it, more likely sooner than later.

Of course, if it's not cost effective to pipe water into a desert to make algae with, it's not going to happen. That's common sense, and I'd expect you to realize that - the same I'd expect you to realize that there's easily dozens of viable, direct or near-direct replacements for the petrochemical fuels we're hooked on that will all become cost-effective at some point or another as oil peaks and declines.

>>3458248
Right.

Market currently demands magic.

>MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC
>WANDS WANDS WANDS
>GET THEM WHILE HOT
>MAGIC MAGIC
...Market demands FTL

>FASTER THAN LIGHT
>GO WARP SPEED

market demands reality

>wha? you can't get that shit here.

>>3458248
Yes and if resources are indeed limiting, the market will kill 3-4 billion people.

Your thought process is cold and unethical.

>>3458261
Clearly, the space race was the product of Magic, rather than the market being flooded with money being thrown at everyone that advanced the space race making it an extremely lucrative thing to pursue
Just go away. Go read a book on basic economics.
>>3458265
Sorry that we can't pull more resources out of our collective asses, but there's no real way around it. We're over-populated, and we can only get away with it because of cheap energy.